Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 34

At the xkcd article there have for a while been a couple people who want to add a sentence about a robot they and their buddies built based on an xkcd comic; the only mention of it is in a personal blog, so as you can expect it has been reverted several times. Recently, someone tried to re-add the information with this rationale, which is basically "WP:N only applies to what can be an article topic, not to what information can be included in an article". Granted, it has been a long time since I read WP:N from start to finish, but I think the obvious de facto consensus is that notability applies to everything (it just applies differently to information than topics—topics need to be notable to the real world, whereas information in an article needs to be notable to that topic).

Anyway, my response to this editor was basically a link to WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA. Is there a more appropriate response to this argument (ie, is there some part of WP:N that I'm missing)? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

RS, NOR, COI, UNDUE, and several other policies give you more than adequate reason to remove this trivia. A broadening of WP:N to encompass a situation already covered by other policies seems unwise. But there is manifestly not consensus that WP:N applies to article content, as that would mean that every aspect of article content must be double-sourced. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the links Phil cites, but I think the canonical policy at issue is verifiability, which is an information inclusion policy, and opposed to notability, which is a topic inclusion guideline. The information can't be verified because it's original research → and because it's original research, there are no real world, reliable sources to source it from → and because there are no real world reliable sources to source it from, thus showing it's importance in relation to the topic → including it would be undue weight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If the sourcing for their robot and connection to xkcd was established by a third-party, then yes, WP:N would not limit its inclusion. But it is a verification issue that's at stake more than anything else. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Undue weight clause of NPOV, particularly in the context of other existing policies, is adequate to deal with non-notable content in articles about notable topics. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. Maybe some editors (including myself) have a bad habit of citing WP:N too much; I know I often see, and make, edit summaries like "rv nn" or "rv, trivial". Might be better to try focusing more on the verifiability and RS issues in the future. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see editors removing content as non-notable. Usually list content. I think there's some level of common use, even if there's a specialized meaning for notability here. But usually you can deal with the same content through WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not even that we have a specialized meaning for notability here. It's that we've all basically agreed that "at least two significant sources" is a suitable test for notability. Even here, when we speak of notability, we're talking about the concept you'd expect. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It can't possible apply to information, at least not in the sense WP:N uses it, or we would not be able to add reliably sourced content from a single RS, as in general we can and do. It would not permit us to say who a notable person's father was, unless his father was also notable. It would not permit us to say who the publisher of a book is, unless that publisher was notable. It would not permit us to say where a notable building was located, unless that street was notable. The test is significant and relevant and verifiable. DGG (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Suggestion Box#Wikipedia: Inclusion policy Rd232 ^talk 03:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Short story? about whether a new guideline is needed to address the notability of a short story. Please feel free to comment. NJGW (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is coverage, as referred to in the article? If a topic is one in a list of 50 on many third-party websites, can this be considered coverage? For example, if a competition is listed here and on many other sites, can it be considered notable? Thanks, -download | sign! 02:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"significant coverage" means that third party reliable sources make more than a passing comment about the topic. So the appearance in a single list would not count. Sometimes passing mention (such as appearing on a list), if repeated a by a large number of sources is considered by the community to be "significant coverage". However, generally, if the item appears in passing a substantial number of times there is at least one source that gives more than passing coverage. But note that the coverage must be in reliable sources - the link you provided is aparently a self published website, and so no that would not count. However you should take your question to the Reliable sources notice board with the particulars of your instance, because specific context is important. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The link I provided is actually not a self-published website though, as it is a subpage of the Official American Regions Mathematics League website. -download | sign! 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's self-published by the American Regions Mathematics League.... --Alvestrand (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The ARML actually has no affiliation with the Washington State Mathematics Championship. -download ׀ sign! 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(ADDED: Unless I am misinterpreting it,) S Marshall has reworded this guideline in a way which takes from an option to a requirement, that when there is some referenced information in an article which gets deleted, the information and reference "should be" merged into a related article. Suppose that an article cites a particular pothole in New York City emerges from AFD judged to be failing of notability, even though there was a magazine article about the pothole, how much people driving down the sidestreet where it is located hate it, and how long it has been there. The revised language implies that the pothole should now be mentioned in the article on New York City, even though it is merely one of 99 gazillion present, past and future potholes. Or the reference might talk about one cabdriver, or one tree, or one robbery. It would give vastly undue weight to make an article into an accretion of everything which is related to the subject and which has one reference. This revised guideline will certainly get used as a legalistic club to brandish at those who seek to delete indiscriminate collections of information, trivia, and directory-type information.

I propose reverting the text back to what it was before the revision by S Marshall. Not every referenced fact about a subject needs to be included in an article about it. Much of the information which would get added would be so much clutter, like adding the referenced fact that a particular soldier fought in a particular war, even though someone created a (singly) referenced article about how that soldier fought in that war. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome, S Marshall stated:

"We don't delete reliably-sourced material just because it fails to satisfy the notability criteria. There are very, very few circumstances in which it's appropriate to cut verifiable content completely—it could happen in a copyvio, or a BLP concern, but certainly not for failing WP:N.

Where a guideline is in conflict with a policy, the policy shall prevail. WP:N is a guideline, and WP:PRESERVE is policy.

Fortunately, we can normally reconcile WP:N with WP:PRESERVE by turning the non-notable article into a redirect into an article that is notable, merging the reliably-sourced material and cutting the rest, which is what we need to do here."—S Marshall

To the contrary, there is much verifiable and referenced information which is so trivial that it would lower the quality of an article by sticking it in. Some provision or qualifier is needed to avoid pasting every referenced factoid or bit of trivia into some related article. Edison (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've broken the above material into paragraphs because it was hard on the eyes. I have not changed Edison's words, and his quote is accurate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Edison (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that by making the redirect/merge more compulsory, we will accrete referenced trivia into the destination aricles. This runs afoul of the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, particularlynot "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." In some cases, that appropriate weight is exclusion from the article about the larger topic. Also consider Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This says that in fact not every "true and referenced fact" needs to be merged. "Preserving" it is not always necessary. Edison (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "there is much verifiable and referenced information which is so trivial that it would lower the quality of an article by sticking it in", is Edison proposing to revise WP:NOTABILITY? That might be worth considering, as WP:N has some rather silly consequences. --Philcha (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I do feel we should not lightly remove verifiable, reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia. My intention was to add the sense of Uncle G's userspace essay "On notability" into this guideline.

  I don't think this would, if left unchanged, lead to a sudden rash of articles about potholes in New York City. I think Wikipedia editors are, by and large, more intelligent than that and they won't follow a guideline over a cliff.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not warn against new articles about trivial factoids. To the contrary, as I said above, my concern is that the new wording could be used by a fan of something to demand that even if the article is judged to fail WP:BIO or some other guideline, it has a reference, so it should be merged into the parent related article. In some cases, this would be inappropriate, and not even a redirect is called for. This discussion is not really about what is notable enough to have an article. It is about the consequences of failed notability, when something relatively trivial is still verifiable. This guideline woudl be stepping on the toes of the policy WP:NOT if it implies that we "should preserve referenced facts" in every case. An encyclopedia is more than a collection of facts, and not every fact about something belongs in an article about it. If an article is judged worthy of deletion in AFD due to failure to satisfy WP:N, and there is a reference to verify something in the article, it may or may not be the case that the fact and its reference would improve a related article. If the closing admin sticks in a sentence about a relatively unimportant factoid (with reference) in the related article, it might give it undue weight, and it might get removed. Statements with references often do get deleted from articles, sometimes on the grounds that they are just not that important in the overall scope of the article. Some qualifier is needed in the present text of WP:N to reduce the apparent requirement to merge any referenced facts. Edison (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Edison, I agree with your "An encyclopedia is more than a collection of facts, and not every fact about something belongs in an article about it". For example the town where I was brought up is, AFAIK, not notable_real-world, but is notable_{Wikipedia-world} because it appears in some government publications, modern Domesday Books whose main aim is to collect taxes and generate jobs for bureacrats. --Philcha (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The short of it is "yes". We essentially can redirect any article somewhere, so we only need to delete edit history when there's a concern of copywright violations, libel, or hoax-like material damaging to the project. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of whether WP:PRESERVE really means we can't delete anything but copyvios and BLP info (an argument I disagree with), there is a difference between redirecting an article to another article (thus preserving the edit history) and merging an article, which usually implies bringing some of the content from redirected article to parent article. There are many, many cases where a redirect is appropriate but a data merge is not. The most recent I've dealt with was Texas A&M Foundation, which was redirected but not merged to Texas A&M University; the university article already briefly mentioned the foundation and its capitalization, and any further details of the foundation's inner workings are inappropriate in the other article. It becomes a matter of undue weight for certain aspects, much of which could be classified as trivia. Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's always worth considering, but not always appropriate. If it violates WP:NOT, then definitely not. We're also obligated to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that isn't covered in a few third-party sources. And even then, a merge might not be appropriate if the article has nothing to say that hasn't already been covered elsewhere, or the additional details it offers violates WP:NOT. It's a case-by-case basis, and our policies have some pretty good common sense to work with. So let's not prescribe anything one way or the other. Randomran (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, there are some misunderstandings of what I said here.

  I specifically said that a BLP or a copyvio would be reasons to delete reliably-sourced content. I did not specifically say, but I did mean, that that would extend to other core policies as well. I've been entirely clear that I think notability concerns in themselves are usually not grounds to remove verifiable, reliably-sourced content from Wikipedia. A violation of WP:NOT is an entirely different matter, and (I think) not particularly relevant to this discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS: How would we feel about reverting to this revision, which is really how I feel the guideline should read?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your heart is in the right place, but we should avoid being overly prescriptive. There are a lot of instances where we don't merge, because of other policies, or because of redundancy, or a combination of the two. Although as a matter of principle, it's a good idea. Randomran (talk)

That revision's not even slightly prescriptive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that revision. I could probably live with that, but let's see what other people say. I think the word "should" freaks a lot of people on Wikipedia out, even if only because of WP:CREEP. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I'm freaked out exactly by the word "should" in this revised proposal, rather I don't think it's appropriate. There's no "should" about it; it has to depend on what the information is and how relevant it would be if it were included in another article. It's not one of wikipedia's aims to be a repository of all known facts, sourced or otherwise, it's to provide quality articles on a wide range of topics. The danger with this proposal, which I'm quite certain is a well-meaning one although IMO misguided, is that articles will end up as dumping grounds for facts that can't be shoe-horned anywhere else.

I see nothing of advantage in this proposal, revised or not, over the status quo. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm genuinely perplexed. That revision doesn't say "Wikipedia should be a repository of all known facts, sourced or otherwise" and it certainly doesn't say "articles shold be dumping grounds for facts that can't be shoe-horned anywhere else".

Where are you getting this strange idea from?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If a magazine article says that my Uncle Irving drove a bus in New York for 30 years,with a perfect safety record and someone creates an article about Irving the NY bus driver, but AFD judges that the article fails WP:BIO, then the referenced and verifiable information should be stuck into some article to perserve it, per S. Marshall's comments here and elsewhere. But a great deal of information is only of genealogical interest (to relatives of the person), or of interest to fanciers of some arcane hobby. I argue that it is not necessarily the case that all of the verifiable and referenced info which fails AFD should be placed in any Wikipedia article. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The Uncle Irving factoid would not improve an article on New York City or an article on buses or on safety. There is no appropriate place to put it or many other factoids about many garage bands or many high school sports teams. Maybe it just does not belong anywhere in the encyclopedia. "Might" or "could" or "often can be" would sound a lot less like a rule which should be followed as to the disposition of referenced but trivial information. So lose the "should" or revert to the original language in the passage in question. Often "Delete" really means "Delete" and not "Merge," even if the factoid or biography has a reference to verify it, if it is not important in covering the target article's subject. Edison (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I see no reason why my suggestion version [1] should have been changed by S Marshall to an injunctive "should". Editors will always use their own judgement as to what information is worth merging, regardless of whether it says "should", so policy should reflect this perfectly reasonable behaviour. Entirely deleting the suggestion to merge, as Randomran just did, isn't really helpful. Rd232 ^talk 05:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't do that because I was trying to delete it or because this is my preferred version. Just that people started reverting back and forth between recent changes, and I decided to back up to a version from a couple weeks ago. Randomran (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is currently no workedout policy on this, it's spread across a number of places (including WP:NOT). Perhaps we should try drafting a Wikipedia:Inclusion policy. Notability would be a daughter page of this, specifically for whether topics should have articles; and the policy would also cover this sort of thing being discussed here. Rd232 ^talk 03:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a revision that, I hope, will address all the concerns expressed here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some groups of subjects that all fit into a single category. Very often, most of them will clearly meet WP:N guidelines, but this may be difficult or impossible to establish for a few more obscure ones. At the same time, it is not practical to combine them into a single article.

Under this proposal, if the clear majority of the subjects do meet WP:N guidelines and have standalone articles, then standalone articles can be created for the small remainder of the subjects, provided that:

1. The exact or approximate number of subjects in the category is known, and there is an official limit
2. Their mere existence can be truthfully verified with at least some source. A primary source directly affiliated with the subject or an external link providing detailed information would be acceptable in this case.
3. A navbox or some other template be placed on the page, which would effectively "string" the pages together as if they were a single article.

There would be no minimum length to the page, provided that it meets all other Wikipedia guidelines in article creation, particularly going beyond a dictionary entry. Very short articles with potential for expansion should be marked as stubs

Some examples are:

• If a city has had 40 mayors in its history, and 36 of them are clearly notable and have articles, then articles can be created on the remaining 4.
• If a train line has 10 stations, and 7 of the stations are clearly notable and have articles, then articles can be created on the remaining 3.
• If a TV series has 50 episodes, and 44 of the episodes are clearly notable and have articles, then articles can be created on the remaining 6
• If a public school system has 27 schools, and 20 of the schools are clearly notable and have articles, then articles can be created on the remaining 7.

This policy would not apply to:

• Subjects for which only a minority have been found to be notable, for which notability seems to be the exception and not the rule. For example, if a musician has recorded 100 songs, and only 3 songs so far are notable enough to have articles (that being a minority), then any additional standalone articles on the musician's songs must meet WP:N guidelines.
• Run-of-the-mill subjects. Those that are so commonplace, that if an article would be created on every single one, Wikipedia would be clogged. For example, not all streets within a city can be notable, because one city has thousands.

Under this proposal, "majority" does not necessarily mean more than 50%, and "minority" does not necessarily mean less than 50%. It is all based on common sense. The purpose is to allow for more inclusion when it is likely something should be included. Sebwite (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that if there is no verifiable evidence of notability, then the topic is unsuitable for inclusion as it will fail Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia is not in the business of cataloguing absolutely everything, and if there is no coverage from reliable secondary sources, then there is no point in having a standalone article. A good example would be the List of Doges of Venice - clearly there many famous leaders of the Most Serene Republic of Venice, but many were simply figureheads or ruled for a very short period and little note has been made of them. This is a clear example of where notability is not inherited, nor is notability automatically confered merely by association. Put quite simply, how can you write an encylopedic article about a topic for which nothing has been written? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - this seems to be aimed at situations when "it is not practical to combine them into a single article." But we can have List of Xs to provide basic details of the items, and if there is enough information on a particular X that it doesn't fit in the list, then X will surely deserve its own article. Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just because some articles can demonstrate notability does not mean that similar topics are necessarily notable. If reliable, independent sources cannot be found to indicate notability, then an individual article should not be created. Instead, group into a list where possible; where not, just don't have a link. Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Can't see any encyclopedic purpose to the idea at all. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mostly Oppose - In general, this can't be assumed, but we do allow for common sense variations on it. For example, it's pretty assured that every Simpsons episode can be brought beyond basic GNG passing, and only newer episodes lack details due to the time it takes for the sources to come out - but these sources are like clockwork and can be expected to appear, thus we allow for new Simpsons episode articles to be created and possibly stay below the GNG since the rest will. But that's a case where it can be expected because of what the WProject has done in the past. In cases like the train station and schools, there's no compelling evidence that if 70% of the items in the group are notable, the other 30% will be too. I'd argue it's more the exception that we allow for all items in a group to be kept if a few of them are not presently notable than it is a rule. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This question seems to have arisen spontaneously in 3 unrelated discussions in the last few days:

• The one above, especially the comment about "populated places", which links to Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) (15:20, 29 May 2009).
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#multitude_of_minor_direct_references spawned a sub-thread about characters that meet WP:GNG but are insignificant, but it's easy to find scholarly writings that provide "significant coverage" of this non-entity, for example Homeric variations on a lament by Briseis is a whole book about her.
• Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Astronomy_GAs, where at first sight HD 217107 appears to meet the GA criteria but the article does not show why that large ball of hot gas is worthy of mention.

Of course we'd need to find a solution that is fairly objective. Elen of the Roads's suggestion "is *consistently* mentioned in sources that do not set out to list all the characters in the work" (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#multitude_of_minor_direct_references, 13:22, 29 May 2009) looks like a good start - with minor changes, it would apply equally well to objects in star catalogues, and to the torrent of articles about minor geographical features (villages, roads, bridges, sewer covers, etc.) mentioned in government publications whose only function is to collect taxes and keep officials in work. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Phrase it as "subjects which are *consistently* mentioned in sources that do not set out to list all the subjects within that class or set of classes" () and that should cover geographical objects, minor stars, types of snail, railway hardware and Pokemon characters. If the author/supporter of the article at AfD cannot show that the subject is consistently (even if only in a minor way) mentioned by reliable sources, if it only appears in gazetteers, compendia and such ilk, then it is not safe to assume that sources will be found.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of things like government registers, i.e. modern Domesday Books. --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Local/National Land and Property Gazetteer - that kind of thing? Built to power collection of rates & taxes.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In general we have chosen, wisely or otherwise, that we rely on reliable sources to establish notability. I've no objection to a discussion about scrapping that and using a more standard (dictionary) definition of notable. However, given WP:PAPER exists, I think that having multitudes of well-sourced articles on arcane and "minor" topics is a good thing, not a bad one. Could you spell out the problems you are trying to address by adding this bar? Hobit (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually an attempt to set a minimum level. There are a lot of articles on very small geographical entities etc, which do not have any notability but which are referenced in government documents or academic catalogues. Attempts to delete or merge these articles frequently fail because it is argued that as they exist (points to list issued by government) there will be sources about them. This was an attempt (sprung from the notability in fiction debate) to establish a minimum standard - if the subject is only listed in catalogues then that is not enough evidence, if the subject is consistently mentioned in reliable non-gazetteer sources about that class of subject, even if the mention is minimal, then that could provide a minimum level of enoughness, if there are not substantial secondary sources about that subject. If it's a bar, then it's a lower one than WP:GNPElen of the Roads (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Humm, maybe some of the examples made me think otherwise. Let me ask, if the bar is lower than WP:GNG, what is the point of adding it? Hobit (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologise for misleading phrasing. There was a preceding discussion about how one can find scholarly articles on extremely minor characters in works that have become set texts or attained hoary antiquity (or both) which may have confused matters. The only reason for setting the bar lower is that it appears in certain areas (fictional characters, objects in the landscape and heavenly bodies are three areas identified) WP:GNG is so high as to be unattainable (not every packhorse bridge appears in a book somewhere, although I'm sure they all have a history that can be heard at the local hostelry), which has had the counterintuitive effect that the standard has been abandoned altogether, and articles are surviving AfD's on the basis that as the subject can be shown to exist, it follows that there will be sources about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The number of articles categorized as Category:Bilateral_relations (ex: Solomon Islands – Venezuela relations) is getting out of hand. I tried parsing the list in Excel, and estimate there are currently 5,000+ articles solely about the relationship between two specific countries. Theoretically, let us consider the 192 UN Member States (although there are actually ~245 countries in the world). The number of unordered combinations is "192 choose 2", or 18,336 articles on binational relationships (in theory).

In my opinion, these articles do not have de-facto notability, and should be aggressively deleted unless they have the following:

• The relationship itself can pass the criteria of WP:Notability, completely independent of the notability of the two countries.
• They have fought in a war, against eachother, or as allies.
• They have a history of major conflicts or cooperations, on the level of USA-Cuba or China-North Korea.
• One has a history of colonization of the other.

What do you think of these articles? Habanero-tan (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The only ones that I would even begin considering defacto are those nations that share a border; anything else should need to pass the GNG. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is likely going to be the great inclusion vs. deletion debate of the year. I am a borderline inclusionist and think roughly 1/4 of these articles are notable. It would help to have an individual notability guideline however. Perhaps rather then deleting, we could merge every non-notable article into its Foreign Relations of article and place it on a table, an effort that User:Ikip has been working with the past few weeks. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've located the main discussion, I'll move my comments there. Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Bilateral_international_relations Habanero-tan (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked and asked about his in various fora, mostly in relation to a specific set of articles, but I put this question for discussion here: How does WP:N and it's sub-guidelines square with the concept of inherent notability? - that is, the idea that something is notable because it is (like people often claim is true of settlements/towns). Help me out here. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, in this day and age of global mass media anything that could possibly be considered inherently notable would by definition be shown notable through our normal standards. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this in real-life terms, the main question is, "Is there good evidence that someone not connected with the subject took any notice?" If no-one took any notice, it's not notable. --Philcha (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Frizpoll, perhaps you have missed the earlier discussion and the one above? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of inherent notability needs to be codified one way or the other with regard to populated places. There currently appears to be no consensus between the two camps, with one side claiming "all verifiable settlements are notable and deserve a stand-alone article", and the other side saying that settlements should not be an exception to the general notability guidelines. Because it is much easier to create than to delete an article (one needs only a single person, the other needs consensus), the status quo is such that the vast majority of settlement articles (no matter how insignificant) are kept at AFD as stand-alone articles. A compromise proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) failed to gather any significant discussion. --Polaron | Talk 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think populated places is a good example of the The Emperor's New Clothes. It is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of evidence. Basically all those towns without evidence of notability fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVEL - the policies and guidelines could not be more clear. Sooner or later, the consensus at WP:AFD will swing the other way. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we've been down the road of how the settlements articles are seemingly in violation of notability but they always manage to survive because of the implication they will have sources. I agree that not every settlement, particularly in Africa, Asia, and the like, needs an article on en.wiki due to the fact that there aren't going to be many english sources or sources that have been reliably translated to english to be used (this is not to say that a table that lists the settlements, approx. population, and location can't hurt, and then when actual sources do appear, then an article can be created). The reason that en.wiki is important here is because I can see the arguments for listing every settlement where English is either the primary or significant secondary language (ala US, Canada, Europe, Far East, etc.) since the availability of English sources is going to be much more likely. But I'd argue that most of these probably shouldn't exist on their own, but unfortunately those that run the bots that create these articles strongly disagree and manage to get their way. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's come up again because I just closed a geographic article to redirect, which has gone to DRV (please don't go looking for it) and basically I closed on the basis that the GNG is superior to claims of inherent notability. If inherent notability does not exist, shouldn't that be codified in N? As to bots, mine wasn't approved to create single line stubs, and I had to do a hunt for notability first - that actually stopped the project, as did my ever-increasing concerns that it might not be for the good of the project. I just think we need to sort this one way or the other, since it will inevitably come around again. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I really think, with all the discussion we've gotten on this, that we need to assert somewhere that the purposes of the SNGs are the only places where "inherit" notability can be asserted. So if there's a project or group of editors strongly interested in populated places, they need to develop a SNG that gains community consensus to assert that any villiage that is listed in an official government census (for one) is notable. That's my problem with this particular effort is that this isn't spelled out anywhere, and thus we have to (presently) go by what they say. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the SNG's assert that notability can be inherited without evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Related to the concept of inherent notablity of places, there is a new AFD for a U.S. place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theba, Arizona. --Polaron | Talk 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted this new entry and am unclear why is does not meet the notability criteria. Timothy Prager has a fifteen year body of work in British and American television and film as well as writing two musicals for the stage - His work has been seen in aggregate by literally hundreds of millions of people. Please advise.Gabjatp (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the article is sources: the article does not provide any, so it is impossible to tell whether anything in the article is correct. For example, has any news organization written about Timothy Prager (not just a mere mention, but significant coverage of him)? Significant coverage in reliable sources is Wikipedia's measure of notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I publish a book. Since the book qualifies as a published source, and is evidence of its own existence, does it automatically become noteworthy?

Would it need to have received reviews, or other evidence of having been noticed? Would it matter if the book were published by a vanity press, a small-scale arts press, a religious organization, a university press, a print-on-demand publisher, or as an e-book? (If so, then please explain your reasoning.)

Does it matter what language the book is in? Dawud (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (books), a guideline just for this purpose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think something needs to be addressed soon. Soldier's dying in an armed conflict now will draw quite a bit of news now with globalization of media, such as SSG_Darrell_Griffin,_Jr.. Under current guidelines, they meet WP:NOTE, however, a similar soldier dying in WWII would hardly elicit an article. I noted this during new page patrol, and now it is in AfD. I think we need to draw attention to this now. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. For example the Victoria Cross is the UK's highest combat medal, and there is an online register that may provide access to a lot more info. But I'm sure very few of the acts that earned these rewards were historically significant, i.e. materially changed the course of a battle or campaign. Even the existence of an obit does not guarantee historical significance - for example, apart from the obligatory bio details, this one is mainly about how the subject was erroneously awarded a posthumous VC and was, before his death, one of the nine surviving holders of the VC.

I suspect the same applies to non-combat medals, for example the George Cross is the UK's highest non-combat award for courage, and there is a George Cross database and a more detailed listing for the Royal Engineers.

Looks like we need additional inclusion criteria for heroes. After all we already have an additional inclusion criterion for sportspersons, that they must have competed regularly at the top level, i.e. sportspersons who competed only in sub-adult or lower divisions are ineligible. For heroism I suggest subjects would be included if they satisfy one or more of a range of criteria. For example: having a significant impact on the course of a battle or campaign or war; setting an example that directly let to some social or political change, including e.g the founding of a charity that is already notable in its own right. I suspect this will be a complex debate. --Philcha (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not meaning to disrespect those soldiers, but no, just fighting and dying in a war is not necessarily grounds to make that person notable. Again, not to be disrespectful, but from the standpoint of en.wiki alone, there are a large number of US and British soldiers that died in WWII, much less any other wars of the 20th century; not all of these brave men were notable. It is important if they contributed greatly in that war that can be backed by sources, and I would not challenge an article on a posthumous medal awarded for their actions as they likely did something to deserve it.

The issue different here is that the current action in the Middle East is taking place among a huge news distribution network as well as the scrutiny of numbers of people, so a solder's death is going to be well documented and their life's bio explained fully - somewhere. But back in WWII -- or even the US's last major war, the Vietnam War, reporting was not as prevailant then as it was today. This is not to say some soldiers that died were not reported on in the same depth as those that died in the current situation but its likely not going to be an easy search on the Internet. And maybe we have to remember WP:NOTNEWS or WP:OE - people famous for one event (which, again, not to minimize their efforts, but includes being simply a soldier in a war) are not necessarily notable. This also leads me with concern on WP:MEMORIAL for these types of articles if only their death during combat is their notability facet. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget the bias included in these reports. According to Iraq War, during the invasion, 9,200 Iraqi soldiers died vs. 172 coalition soldiers. Very few of these Iraqis will have any readily available biographical info in reliable sources. Should we only include biographies of those that fought and died on the winning side? Fram (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the topic is here. Can someone provide us with at least one secondary source on a soldier who died in combat who they think is not notable? Shouldn't the mere existence of an obituary (as opposed to a death notice), for any dead person, not necessarily a soldier, be sufficient reason for inclusion of a separate article? RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would argue no unless 1) it was clearly written by the publication staff as opposed to friend or family and 2) it is more than just a local announcement; even if it's published in the New York Times, the obit of a local resident that died in the war that isn't covered anywhere else is not sufficient for notability. That's not to say that the obit can't help tp point where likely other sources will be or can't be included as one of other sources for an article, but a local-published obit alone isn't much. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "obituary" criterion favours military personnel of the winning side, of the side with the better mass communications, and of the side that is more concerned about deaths in the lower ranks - three types of systemic bias, all of which at present would over-represent US military personnel. That's why I suggested additonal criteria for war dead: having a significant impact on the course of a battle or campaign or war; setting an example that directly let to some social or political change, including e.g. the founding of a charity that is already notable in its own right. --Philcha (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "posthumous medal" criterion has similar systemic bias - see Purple Heart. I suspect the war dead may generally have to await the verdict of historians, which may only come a few decades later. --Philcha (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would argue that the recognition associated with the Victoria Cross establishes notability. The awarding of the decoration is reported in reliable sources, and if the recipient survives to eventually die of old age, there is likely to be an obituary published about the recipient because the media are likely to regard the person as notable, no matter how long ago the medal was awarded. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Are online product reviews in and of themselves indicators of notability?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If they from independent reliable sources and are non-trivial, yes.陣内_Jinnai 21:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to include the reasons notability matters?Surlywombat (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that notability matters. Every existing piece of human knowledge, even small ones can be a topic of encyclopedic article. This notability topic gives biased power to admins for article deletions. --Nevit (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It matters because not every teeny tiny little fact that exists can possibly be documented within one central repository. It's just not possible. Not only that, but every opinion about every fact expands the data exponentially. An encyclopedia is meant to contain information about subject deemed to be of interest to the society to which it is directed. In this case, Wikipedia strives to recognize the significance of any particular subject by its appearance in society and reflect that. Notability addresses this significance and requires evidence to support it. Therefore, one cannot sufficiently support the claim that this encyclopedia is held at the mere whim of the administrators, because if the significance in society can be proven, there is no acceptable means to summarily delete such subjects. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, every existing piece of human knowledge is already available. It's called the internet. Let's just say Wikipedia is an organizational system for knowledge. freshacconci talktalk 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments has not changed my opinion. --Nevit (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your individual opinion will not change Wikipedia. There are alternative outlets for other approaches, you know... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just commented here to be known that not all wikipedians agree with the content of this so called official policy. --Nevit (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a policy. Notability is only a guideline.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a de facto policy; a very significant fraction of edits and deletions are due to this guideline, a practice that has been the cause of quite a bit of dissension among Wikipedia contributors. Erik Carson (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • But it isn't policy; we will never have a WP:CSD criterion based on notability (A7 deals with "importance" in general to avoid spamming of personally-invested content), nor will we have a bot patrol for articles that lack sources, claiming them not notable due to that. The guideline is used a lot (at least 90% of the time) for bringing cases to AFD and is usually the deciding factor there, but there's plenty of examples of where something that, even during AFD, remains without demonstration of notability by sources due to other factors. It is a guideline because it is meant to be applied with liberal use of common sense, unlike a policy which is meant to be more rigorous. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Notability is not policy. It's actually a crappy fudge, and the only good thing about it is that it does give an objective, measurable criterion.

        Nevertheless, notability leads to endless coverage of science fiction TV show episodes, anime, manga, flash-in-the-pan pop and rock bands, and the people who've waterskiied on more Canadian lakes than anyone else, while scholarly articles on professors and leaders in academic fields are deleted.

        It will not become policy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

        • Did you mean that LACK of notability leads to that? Because notability is the only thing that prevents every last little thing from being included in Wikipedia. Since when are "leaders in academic fields" deleted? Notability is absolutely necessary to prevent Wikipedia from being a repository of every trivial piece of verifiable information in the world. I agree that notability has become a de facto policy, even before it was officially made a guideline. I think people generally recognize that we shouldn't just flood Wikipedia tons of verifiable, but utterly unnotable and trivial information, like someone who decided to just have a bot create articles for every random person based on government records, phone books, and/or data available through LexisNexis. Sure, you can create or separate rules for those that would amount to be a watered down form of notability. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
          • What I mean is that you can often find more coverage in reliable sources for an article about an episode of Buffy than you can for an article about a professor at a major European university.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That has to do with personal interest of the editors. Someone who is bored out their mind about Heian period will not contribute to it. However that same person if they are interested in Star Trek can't create a detailed article on Captain Picard's tea rankings. This is also somewhat reflective of what people want.陣内_Jinnai 05:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability matters because it is being used here as a term of art for "merits inclusion in the Wikipedia". Once we have agreed that anything and everything does not make it into the Wikipedia, we have to come up with criteria. That's why there are general notability guidelines and category-specific guidelines. If 'notability' was self-evident to all, this discussion page would not have 34 volumes of archives. patsw (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability is de-facto policy by virtue of being directly referenced at WP:DEL#Reason. As a deletion reason, it is actually more readily enforceable than most actual policies. The page itself remains {{guideline}} because it requires significant flexibility in interpretation, flexibility that is normally used with guidelines, and not with policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It not policy at all and we should not pretend it is either. It is simply a helpful guideline to interpret the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What DoubleBlue has written is sometimes misunderstood. Everything that passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR does not per se get a Wikipedia article -- WP:What Wikipedia is not is a policy as well, and this guideline Notability, can be thought of interpretation of WP:NOT and instance of a filter for What Wikipedia is patsw (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In the first bullet point under the first section ("General notability guideline"), the project page says: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Exclusive is the opposite of inclusive; not trivial. For coverage to be exclusive means that the information in the article appears in only one source and nowhere else. To be less than exclusive means that the information appears nowhere; that it was made up out of thin air. In this context, exclusive is almost synonymous with trivial.

I think that whoever added this point meant to say exhaustive: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exhaustive." This means that the coverage does not have to appear in all pertinent sources to be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I have not made this single-word change yet, since this is a "generally accepted standard". But, if no one objects, I will edit the project page next week (anytime after June 22nd). If anyone who is more experienced (or more confident) than I am would like to make the modification before then, be my guest. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it to mean that the source does not have to be exclusively about the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats how I read it to. For example - can use a newspaper article about fast food as a source for the beefburger as long as it has at least say a 5 line paragraph - that what it means by coverage thats not exclusive (not just about burgers) but also not trivial with respect to the subject (as would be the case if the burger was just mentioned in one sentence.) An exhaustive source is one that covers all the significant ground for a topic. Id have to oppose this change as it would make the guideline less inclusion friendly - thanks for discussing the change first! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well on the lower threshold, the wording is a problem. We've had problem with people arguing 1 paragraph, even a 5 sentance one, is not trivial at WP:FICT as it doesn't go "in depth" about the subject. It's pretty poor wording leading it open to abuse from those who want to elawyer.陣内_Jinnai 18:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. We are talking here about exclusive sources rather than exclusive coverage or content. How about "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"? Or would you prefer splitting up the sentence? That is, leaving "Significant coverage should be more than a trivial mention." here under "Significant Coverage" and adding something to the "Sources" point (bullet #3), such as modifying the last sentence to read "Multiple sources, which need not be totally exclusive to the intended article's subject, are generally preferred." RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It might work better flipped around: "Significant coverage in a source does not require the source to be exclusively about the topic, but should be more than trivial coverage." --MASEM (t) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Either would be an improvement. Roy's "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" is maybe the least ambiguous, but your alternative improves on current wording to Masem. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither one really defines what the difference between trivial and minor or moderate coverage is. There is a grey area between trivial and significant.陣内_Jinnai 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right Jinnai , but what Roy's suggesting is hopefully an uncontroversial clarification. It would be very challenging to specify in the general case the proportion and volume of text needed to confer notability. It would have a huge bearing on deletion / inclusion debates and so likely attract massive debate. Then theres the fact that in practice the nature of both the subject and the source are important factors. For example, with a non controversial subject like perhaps a motorway service station, a 2 line mention in an article published in a national newspaper might be fine. To justify a BLP especially if the subject was known to be against it, even half of a two page article being specifically about the subject may not be enough. If someone wanted us to have an entry on an obscure fringe science theory by a scientist writing outside of her main subject, Id guess even a whole chapter in a biography about the scientist might not be enough. If you want to specify just what might count as a reliable source for comics or similar genres, have a look at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and maybe you could write a similar page and later try and get it promoted to an essay or guideline? FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we seem to have consensus, I replaced the original sentence with "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Feedback is requested at Talk:List of characters on Scrubs#Main character merges to decide how to handle the main characters of Scrubs. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A discussion potentially involving notability issues has been instigated at Talk:Bengali script. Please weigh in if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the nutshell use the word "secondary" when the actual GNG text does not? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It does use the term in the explaination, but I think that "reliable sources" and "reliable secondary sources" mean the same thing: independent third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is more or less what WP:SOURCES is refering to. As WP:PSTS says, appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, but since the nutshell is composed with extreme brievity, the term reliable secondary sources is a useful short-hand which is expanded upon in WP:GNG itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It happened 23 May 2007 [2], involving most immediately myself and User:Dhaluza. It was a time of intense and strongly opinionated editing of the page, with the memory of a long period hosting the {{disputed}} tag fresh. I contended that, as per WP:PSTS, WP:N should explicitly call for secondary sources, that primary sources could never, on their own, demostrate the notability that we expect. Dhaluza contended that not all subjects require secondary sources, that there are other ways to deonstrate notability. I felt that that compromise, where secondary sources are normal that base standard, is suitable for the nutshell, but that in the detail, it can be acknowledged that objective evidence of notability can be otherwise provided. It doesn't look aesthetically appealing, but no one has dared change it, substantially, since, although it has been questioned.

What would you do? Remove the reference to secondary sources from the nutshell, severely diminishing the normal requirement for secondary sources? Re-instate it in the GNG, creating an overly strict rule that there must *always* be secondary sources? Re-instate it in the GNG, with caveates, making the GNG even more cumbersome. The way I read it now, the GNG can only be properly read with reference to the several dot points. It's a compomise, and it's ugly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A first draft of a change to the guideline WP:Notability (people) is being discussed at village pump.

--JBC3 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the guideline states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people."

I'm at a loss to understand why this guidance is limited to lists of people. It seems like a sensible rule for all lists. Why would we want long lists of un-notable items? (e.g. List of defunct American Football teams in the Netherlands, List of symphony orchestras in the United States... there are many, many more...}.

Currently, there is effectively no guidance or criteria as to what items merit inclusion on lists.

I propose that list items for all lists should meet our notability guidelines. This seems to be implied anyway, since in theory, items on lists are required to adhere to our WP:Verifiability policy, and if an item can be verified by reliable independent sources, it is notable.

Comments? Dlabtot (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Something can be verifiable, and not be notable enough for an article. For example, a timeline of a notable subject may list events significant to that subject but that don't warrant separate articles covering them (they aren't notable enough). Take the featured list Timeline of Jane Austen for example. There's no way we should have an article on every event listed in there, but each listed event helps the reader understand Jane Austen's life, and therefore they should remain in this timeline. While the Birth of Christ is notable, how many other births are (hardly any). Jane Austen's timeline lists the births of her siblings, even though articles will never be written specifically about these births. We don't even have an article on the Birth of Jane Austen. The Transhumanist 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about timelines, I'm not proposing this for timelines, this proposal is totally unrelated to timelines. Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It has also been my experience that the inclusion criteria for lists tend to be a function of the list itself, and not a general guideline. Because by their nature one list can be considerably different than another, it doesn't make sense to try and formulate guidelines by which to constrain them all. WP:SAL gives some pretty good guidance for what should or should not be in lists, and care must be taken to ensure that lists do not become so loosely bound as to run afoul of WP:NOTDIR, but in general it is best to consider these on a case-by-case basis. Shereth 20:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think individual notability is often helpful, but not necessary. Instead, I think list entries need to be verifiable by independent sources. Another way to look at it is to simply say a list entry cannot be referenced solely by self-published or primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that expresses better what I am trying to say. Otherwise every List of Widgets inevitably turns into the List of All Widgets that ever existed. Dlabtot (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are more than one type of lists, and we need to explain further in the guidelines. For a list which is essentially a combination article, the individual items not only need not but normally would not be notable, for if they were, they'd have separate articles. This is the usual compromise way of handling borderline notability or sub-notability. For lists which serve as the counterpart to categories for navigational purposes, then the criterion is always having a Wikipedia article or beingobviously qualified for one, and the documentation for this is the existence of the article. DGG (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there is more than one type of list is a misunderstanding. Lists can be best described as "list articles", and are bound by the notability guideline like all other mainspace pages in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

According to FL there are different kinds of list articles because character lists aren't, to them, considered list articles.陣内_Jinnai 03:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• To hopefully give the discussion some focus, I'll point to two concrete examples, articles I've edited recently. List of pinball machines and List of symphony orchestras. In both cases, there seemed to be far too many redlinks than was reasonable for an article. There has to be some criteria for inclusion on list such as these, doesn't there? In the case of the orchestra list, many of the redlinks did include external links to the 'official website' of the orchestra. But in the spirit of WP:SELFPUB, simply having a website doesn't seem very relevant to me. Do we want a list of all orchestras that have ever existed? All pinball machines that ever existed? It is questions such as these that lead me to start this discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In these two cases, one notability barrier - the main topic of the list being pinball machines or symphony orchestras - is easily met, so that's not a problem. We're left with the question of what's on the list - and whether full inclusion of every possible one is indiscriminate or not. In both cases, I'd say yes, there is a limit here, but what that limit is needs to be set somewhere so that people aren't fighting over it; each item on the list need not be notable, but the information about it should be meeting verification. So for pinball machines, there's got to be evidence that it existed, including the make and year of inclusion, while for orchestras, there likely needs to be some source that establishes there is one, and also possibly a city-based barrier (that is, only orchestras from cities with > 50,000 or some number should be included). --MASEM (t) 03:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So you actually think we should have a list of all pinball machines that we can verify ever existed? I'll admit, I meant that as reductio ad absurdum and did not anticipate that someone might really hold that position. Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This "guideline" has been categorized as a "content policy," and I reversed that categorization as it is an apparent elevation of this "guideline" to the status of a policy. That was blocked I believe.--Drboisclair (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call. If anything, it should be demoted to an essay if not marked historical. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It will be a great day for the encyclopaedia when that happens. No doubt the folk who drafted this guideline had good intentions, but sadly it has become a weapon for deletionists who delight in purging interesting and valuable articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is by far the best set of inclusion criteria anyone can think of because it enables individual editors create or contribute to articles without supervision. The only alternative basis for inclusion to notability is subjective importance, which requires the supervsion of an editorial board or cabal of administrators. Choose your poison: King Log or King Stork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To say this guideline is objective is false - it is subjective, especially when it leaves historical and scientific research and enters the realm of fictional elements or the like which "objective" criteria here do not adequately account for.陣内_Jinnai 21:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be interesting to discuss what topics are interesting and valuable and had a well-written article, and nevertheless failed to meet subject-specific inclusion criteria. patsw (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that notability is objective. But notability differs from measures of subjective importance such as 'interesting and valuable is that there has to be verifiable evidence of notability, whereas there is no such requirement for subjective importance. There is no evidence to suggest that fiction should be treated differently in this regard. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes that we should abandon verifiability Gavin.陣内_Jinnai 07:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why notability has to be the inclusion criteria for a standalone article in Wikipedia, because it is rooted in all of Wikipedia content policies such as verifiability. It may not be a policy, but it will never be demoted to an essay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• One day someone will come up with a better inclusion criterion than notability, and on that day, I'll be right behind them. I hate this guideline with a vengeance because it's a crude, blunt instrument designed to be wielded with great force by the ignorant, when what's normally needed is a surgeon's razor-sharp scalpel.

  The one benefit notability does have going for it is that it's such a powerful way of detecting and eliminating marketing spam. But every time I see some overenthusiastic teenager use to kill off an article on a scholarly topic, it absolutely sets my teeth on edge.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Can you give an example please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Adrienne Dixson, from yesterday.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an old arguement, often repeated. Not all scholarly topics are notable, and to presume so is an example of WP:IKNOWIT. What is in needed is veriable evidence of notability, not hearsay, or matter of fact opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, and one I've heard a thousand times. That doesn't invalidate the basic point I'm making; the reason it's an old argument is because it's an important one for which there's plurality support.

WP:IKNOWIT is part of WP:ATA, which is an essay I routinely disregard and occasionally sneer at. It's basically a list of arguments that someone else thinks shouldn't count.

I agree that according to the notability guideline, what's needed is verifiable evidence. This discussion is about why, and indeed whether, that should be true.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The choice is WP:N or WP:IKNOWIT: King Log or King Stork. The beauty of notability is that is based on providing verfiable evidence that a topic can meet Wikipedia's content policies; all the alternatives to notability based on subjective importance attempts to avoid or evade specific content policies, which is why they should be viewed with suspicion. They should also be viewed with suspicion because notability provides editors with self-autonomy when it comes to creating articles; subjective importance is the baisis for article inclusion in publications with editorial boards who make those decisions based on their own personal judgement. I would much rather make my own decisions than be answerable to an editorial board or cabal of administrators. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• ←With all due respect for that ingenious and well-phrased argument, I don't think it's tenable. WP:N is clearly not an either/or, this or that, a or b type of choice; one could clearly have a blanket notability policy with specific and well-defined exceptions for topics of scholarly interest. For example, one could add a codicil to WP:N saying that:

  1) A nationally accredited scholarly institution at or above high school level is automatically notable;

  2) A full professor at an accredited university is automatically notable;

  3) An assistant professor is not necessarily notable, but should be merged to "List of assistant professors at the University of X" rather than deleted;

  4) Anything that's the subject of a scholarly paper published by an accredited university or full professor is automatically notable provided it's been cited at least once;

  5) Any journal that publishes scholarly papers and would be a reliable source in its own right is automatically notable;

  Well, I could go on and on.

  My point is that notability is an inherently destructive concept. Its only purpose is to say "you may not create an article on this, that, or the other". And that means it needs to be implemented intelligently, which would not be a problem if editors did use it intelligently, but my perception from very long participation at AfD is that it is not so used. And therefore it needs to be tempered and sharpened so that it trims away the chaff without cutting the flesh.

  Another issue is that any challenge to notability produces a string of sentences in the emphatic declarative followed by the slippery slope logical fallacy, which I'm hoping can be avoided in this case!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Notability is not to prevent people writing about topics, but instead to outline what topics actually get full articles that can be expected to grow into Featured content at some point in the future due to meeting most of our other content policies - WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV primarily, and thus implies some adherence to these key core policies. A topic where there is lack of information to satisfy these still can be covered, but likely in the coverage of a larger topic - such as the case of the person exampled above. But even then, there is still information that is indiscriminate that we should not be including. The complete teaching staff at an accredited university would be such, because it changes readily and for larger schools could easily be in the hundreds, and as someone that's been through the ivory tower, there's enough of these people that get tenure and bury themselves behind ivory walls that they will never pop up again save for being authors of papers, never to see all but their grad students. These people are certainly not notable for their position at a university, though they may be notable for their work. But that needs to be shown as well. That's why WP:N exists as it does - we're relying on others to assert why we should be talking about a person by looking for sources that talk about that person and their work, instead of relying on personal opinion (which is always going to be biased). --MASEM (t) 15:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite, theres probably a lot of value in retaining notability for academics and indeed BLPs in general. In that area we need some sort of criteria to determine what counts as a vanity page and per Gavin notability is preferable to a more subjective value judgment. Apart from BLPs though, when it comes to our choice of which articles to include we dont need either notability or the interest / value judgement - all articles should be accepted unless they meet speedy deletion criteria, are attack pages or are hoaxes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I don't agree with FeydHuxtable; I think there has to be a mechanism to cut out marketing spam, and notability does that admirably. If we decided notability only applied to BLPs, then I think Wikipedia would be drowning in advertisements in a New York minute.

  Masem's case I find interesting, but I'd query the underlying assumptions. These seem to me to be that if it can never be complete, it isn't worth starting, and material that can never be featured content should be discouraged.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• The ideal goal is to get everything Featured, but even ignoring the manpower to do that, there's just also the rate at which information that we can use is generated to satisfy that need. Which is why we have the subnotability guidelines - there are certain topics that if they meet criteria will likely have a multitude of info to meet the content policies and can eventually be made Featured. We can employ these to encourage these, along with the general GNG guideline, to help guide people towards articles that have a very strong likelihood of being developed, and thus the type of content we want to encourage on WP. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• ←But I think we want, and need, articles on scholarly topics that'll never be more than a stub.

  A good example would be in palaeontology. Tooth taxa, such as Wakinosaurus. We have one tooth for that creature, and statistically, we'll never have anything else except the tooth. (I would give other examples of tooth taxa, but I'm unwilling to highlight scholarly topics that fail WP:N on this talk page for fear some idiot would delete it.)

  Another example is Zeno of Elea. Fantastically scholarly topic, but none of his writings survive and we have no biographical details to speak of; what's scholarly about that article is the lack of sources. Which is, itself, of academic importance.

  I have over a hundred biographies of European politicians, judges and scientists on my list of things to translate, all of which are redlinks at the moment. What happens every time I translate one is, someone from the relevant Wikiproject pops over, assesses it as a "stub" or "start-class", and then it languishes on my watchlist, untouched and undeveloped. By the time we get round to developing those articles, all the people involved will be dead.

  What I'm saying is, we need a balanced mix of content. It's all very well building the stuff that'll eventually be a featured article, but actually, I see it as more important to add an article on Catherine Brechignac than it is to spend the same amount of time adding alt text to the images or changing en-dashes to em-dashes in the hope of passing a FAC.

  So I don't agree with you that the goal is to get more things featured. I'd settle for getting most things covered. And notability, as currently enforced, is an obstacle (though not as much of an obstacle as CSD, which I think is desperately in need of reining in).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Notability is not meant to limit what we talk about - it is only to limit the creation of articles that have no hope of expanding. Every topic you mention above should be included - there's sources, but because there's a lack of sources, such articles will always remain stubby. We need to be encouraging people to think in aggregate articles that are better for comprehension than to create short stubby articles that will always be problematic when it comes to notability. The Wakinosaurus article, for example, can probably be dropped into a "List of Dinosaurs" (likely a better title with some degree of resolution based on genus, etc.) - the information is factual but as you state, it is WP:CRYSTAL to assume it will grow more, but there's absolutely no reason not to cover it, and it will be less of a problem if it were with other similar dinosaurs as to provide a comprehensive stand-alone article. Same with Zeno. Same with the scholar that started this discussion, maybe in that case, as "List of notable scholars in race and ethnics studies" or something to signify the importance of her work rather than just her position. Most people that argue against notability are arguing not because we aren't allowing the inclusion of something, but because we're not allowing the inclusion of that topic as a standalone article. Redirects are cheap, disambig pages are cheap, and we should be trying to catalog anything that has been noted in a manner that fits an encyclopedia for verification in any way possible. That doesn't mean everything gets an article. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Masem got it right: "Notability is not meant to limit what we talk about - it is only to limit the creation of articles that have no hope of expanding". The problem is that deletionists routinely ignore WP:BEFORE and the section of WP:DELETE that says improvement is much better than deltion. We don't need to reform WP:Notability, we need to reform deletionists. --Philcha (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think we need to reform the inclusionists that think subjective importance is enough for a topic to get its standalone topic. The usually argue that "all scholars are very important because they have lots of letters after their names" or "plot only articles are important because they have featured in an important work of fiction" :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think I mentioned subjective importance, let alone supported it.
        • I'm aware of the additional notability criteria for academics, and support the idea, although I'm not versed in the details.
        • Who said anything about plot only articles? --Philcha (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I think we need to reform the inclusionists - that could also be said about the other extreme, those who want excessive sourcing with exhaustive (ie not non-trival) detailed coverage from many sources.陣内_Jinnai 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• ←(edit conflict) Plot-only articles isn't quite a straw man, but it's a bit historical. There used to be some extremist inclusionists who feel Wikipedia should have articles about individual television episodes (typically of science fiction or anime programmes) with a detailed in-universe plot summary for each—or, notoriously, separate articles for each individual type of Pokemon. Those days are mostly past now, thank goodness, because the consensus there is now well-established.

  On tooth taxa, Wikiproject Dinosaurs maintains a List of dinosaurs (a featured list) but it's too long to have anything much apart from the genus name and a link to the individual article. (I maintain lists of dinosaurs broken down by continent, so Wakinosaurus also appears on the List of Asian dinosaurs; such shorter lists can include sortable wikitables and timelines). But the consensus on Wikiproject Dinosaurs seems to be, one genus, one article.

  Zeno really does merit his own article, I think, though if I had my way Zeno's paradoxes would be merged into it.

  WP:IKNOWIT is certainly a straw man, and can safely be disregarded. Repeating that allegation won't make it truer.

  Look, my basic point here is that WP:N should probably be applied a bit more intelligently than it presently is. It does have a purpose: it's a mincing machine that chews up marketing spam and those endless articles about individual episodes of Babylon 5, and I'm glad it does that. I just think AfD's becoming so totally focused on it that sometimes there's the exclusion of good sense.

  I suppose thanks to this discussion, I'm coming round to the view that the problem isn't with the guideline. It's with following it too blindly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• And to Jinnai, I'd say it isn't helpful to label people as "inclusionist" or "deletionist". And I'm quite strongly of the view that sources are essential on Wikipedia. I think the proper analysis of sources is really what encyclopaedia writing is all about.

  My problem with WP:N is when it's used to delete material that's sourced and of a scholarly nature.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was simply replying to Gavin's remark that their are zealous deletionist as well as inclusionist on Wikipedia in the broad sense. Labeling an individual member is not what I intended, but the usage of the words is appropriate as they are used by relibale sources when describing Wikipedian (and to a lesser extent other wikis) practices.陣内_Jinnai 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The only topic I have seen articles of a scholarly nature deleted are for Socionomics AFD1 and AFD2, and that is because the sources were not deemed to be independent of the term's creator. An article can be scholarly, but that does not mean it is exempt from challenge if its sources are not reliable or independent. To be honest, I think Socionomics should be nominated for deletion again, as the article is about a neologism being used a front for some stock market analysts to promote their services and publications. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any place where guidelines on the notability of locations are written? Specifically hamlets. Powers ^T 17:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two places to look:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography
• the dormant Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) proposal patsw (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to mention this, but should it be noted that WP:N is a necessary condition for inclusion, but not sufficient? Very often I see debates going on in various places, such as AfDs, where people basically come to the conclusion "it satisfies WP:N, therefore it deserves its own article," which is what the lead of this page seems to imply: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." Even many administrators seem to come to this conclusion with respect to the varied applications of their abilities. When one develops a broader standard of understanding Wikipolicies, however, it becomes obvious that there are multiple necessary conditions required for the inclusion of an article (for example, the most obvious other one being WP:Encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS, etc.). I see many discussions seem to get hooked up on WP:N as the overarching factor; there are numerous topics I can think of off the top of my head which would adequately suffice the 5 "General notability guidelines," but would not be appropriate due to other conditions not being met. And there are many articles which do in fact exist, and stay existing solely because of WP:N, regardless of their contravention of other policies. This seems to be why things such as WP:Bombardment occur, because so many in the community see WP:N as some sort of trump card, when it's most definitely not. I believe it needs to be stressed that this, while being a fundamental part of the inclusion process, is just a part. I've been thinking about this for a while; anyone have any comments?

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind that the topic inclusion criteria set out in WP:N are not criteria for article deletion per se - inclusion and deletion are seperate processes, with different rules. I agree with you that WP:N is a fundamental part of the inclusion process, but is just a part, because if a topic that meets the inclusion criteria set out in WP:GNG, then it is likely to meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies. If an article fails WP:N, then it is likely to fail one or more of these content policies. Failing WP:N is often used at WP:AFD as an arguement for deletion, as it is a short hand way of saying that the topic does not meet the Wikipedia content policies, e.g. it has no independent sources to satisfy WP:V. In my experience, Bombardment is used as way of hiding a lack of independent sources, especially by using sources which are not admissable as evidence of notability, such as those affiliated with the topic (e.g. the publisher of a book) or a source that is not reliable (e.g. a fansite). Where bombardment is used as a defence, it is done to provide false evidence of notability, and is accompanied by the arguments that it should be kept such as WP:ITEXISTS or WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, notability is necessary but not sufficient, all other content policies must also be met. Yes, passing N will likely mean passing V and NOR, but as pointed out, other policies like NOTNEWS, BLP, and the like also further restrict what can be used. If anything, WP:N should be used as a last test: once content that is to be added is determined to be passing all other content guidelines, WP:N says if it should fall into its own article or grouped with other information elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(refactored tabs for ease of reading)

@Gavin: I'm fine with something which fails WP:N (and as a corollary, WP:V) failing an AfD, that's not my issue; deletion is fine.

My real issue has to do with keeping an article. What I'm trying to say is that too often WP:N is used as the litmus test in discussions (my particular example was AfD, but it occurs elsewhere), and if the subject in question passes, it is concluded that it is valid for inclusion. Many editors seem to (while not necessarily explicating it) then conclude that by implication, it passes the other standards, i.e., it's automatically encyclopedic, et cetera. It is not always readily apparent, but you'll see a hint of this type of reasoning quite often if you keep your eyes open for it. This seems to stem (in my eyes) from the wording used in WP:N (and to an extent, also WP:V). See, for example the sentence, right in the lead: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." This definitely ought to be qualified; it makes WP:N appear as the cut-and-dry trump card. And the "page in a nutshell:" "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This also is quite strong wording, and on it's face, contradicts WP:NotNews. User Masem sees what I mean, and that category page provided by Gavin is a good start. Keep in mind, though, that the statement (by Gavin) "if a topic that meets the inclusion criteria set out in WP:GNG, then it is likely to meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies," is where the root of this issue begins. The WP:N article doesn't imply that "it is likely," it leads to the often erroneous conclusion that "it does," or "it will." What I am saying is that this page ought to be slightly edited to help guard against such lines of implicit reasoning, or that an overarching policy page ought to be drafted, such as WP:Inclusion (I know this links to a disambig page, that's not what I mean), which gives equitable weight in a logical way to each of the criteria (with links to their appropriate, more detailed articles) which must be satisfied for something to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This would be an overarching page and would include references to all of Wikipedia's content policies, plus possibly some more policies. It would lead to a more holistic approach to the reasoning used in inclusion debates, and less "binary" reasoning.

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Another wording issue: I see misuses such as when WP:N is used to justify the inclusion of a website, rather than the appropriate WP:N(WEB), which is actually more stringent (thus it gets "neglected" by those who support the article's inclusion). The sentence in WP:N: "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines." This implies that if it passes WP:N, it passes, and the specific guideline only ought to be checked if you need more reason to justify its inclusion; it does not imply that, in fact, sometimes the specific subject guidelines are actually more stringent (as with WP:N(WEB)).

I recommend the following wording change (in bold) as this is a valid point, it's not clear that notability is only but one factor to consider.

On the second point: the Sub-notability guidelines like WP:N(WEB) work either/or with WP:N - either a topic is shown notable through WP:N, or shown notable through a sub-guideline. The existence of the sub-notability guidelines is that they provide criteria that, based on editing experience of the past, there will likely be sources for a topic if one of the criteria is met, including sources that demonstrate that condition being met. However, it is quite possible for a topic it be notable without meeting the sub-notability guidelines (I know there was a case of a football player that failed to meet WP:ATHLETE but clearly was notable otherwise); WP:N is the catchall for all topics regardless if sub-notability guidelines exist. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is a term of art used among Wikipedia editors to discuss whether a topic should have an article in the Wikipedia. Peace and Passion, it is merely an informal definition or shorthand for what is spelled out in the guidelines. So when someone asserts a topic is notable they are asserting it satisfies the objective criteria for its inclusion according to either general or category inclusion criteria. Regarding the suggested wording by Masem, I reject the above as unnecessary. WP:N is a guideline which serves to clarify the WP:NOT policy. The others listed in the blanched almond box refer to the content within the article, not to the suitability of the topic. patsw (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It does, in its current form, lead to the problem of ignroing the SNGs, which can be more stringent, like WP:WEB.

(left align tabs for ease of reading)

Thank you, Masem, for your clarification of WP:N versus more specific criteria (eg., WP:NWEB). I now understand what you mean for the most part, but I still believe there are some exceptions, as per Web specifically. There are numerous webpages that can satisfy WP:N, but I still believe ought not have their own articles, as per WP:NWEB they don't have notable "achievements, impact or historical significance." While satisfying WP:N, they may only do so to an extent which allows "trivial coverage" including only existing to "describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers," which contravenes WP:NWEB and are thus (at least per WP:NWEB's implications) unsuitable. I think that in some situations these secondary guidelines ought to be made more apparent as they have developed on their own more appropriately for their specific subject area(s). But, on reading what you have said, I understand for the most part (ATHLETE was a good example) how you have clarified their usages as corollaries — but I still think there are important exceptions which can't be neglected.

I do agree, tentatively, to your re-framing of the paragraph above to qualify / specify that there are important exceptions.

Secondly, I'm really not sure what Patsw is trying to say. I understand what "notability" is. I am familiar with "technical jargon," but not with the usage of "term of art." As per the link provided, "terms of art or words of art have meanings that are strictly defined by law." The post then goes on to explain that "it is merely an informal [usage]." This is exactly the contradiction I am trying to get clarified in the wording of the policy; this policy is meant to be "strictly defined," implementable policy. It's one of the most important Wikipolicies out there. It's "informal" and "shorthand" usages coupled with the wording of the guideline itself are leading to it being used a "trump card" (I don't know how else to put this). WP:N is meant to be a guideline, sharp and concise, working in tandem with other policies, not some "artistic," fluid concept to be vaguely referenced while somehow implying all the other content policy requirements are "passed" when ever WP:N is invoked. The wording of the policy implies (or rather blatantly states) that a subject will "merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below." This contradicts other policies, and makes it sound that WP:N is even more fundamental than WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which it is obviously not. The policy's relation to all of the other guidelines needs to be made crystal clear, in this article, and perhaps in an overarching article. There is an old, failed one which I dug up which includes good elucidation of some of the concepts I have been trying to explain (though it needs a lot of work and has faults of its own, see Wikipedia:Article inclusion)

Taken from an old (failed) Wikipolicy Wikipedia:Article inclusion (bold in original):

4.Articles should follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even if an article meets the criteria above, it still might fail to meet other policies such as neutral point of view or what Wikipedia is not. For example, an otherwise well-referenced and topical article whose subject is inherently based in a point of view, or is intended to "fork" an existing article to spotlight a single viewpoint, is likely to be unacceptable according to policy on point of view forks.

5.Although many things are attributable to reliable sources, they may not meet the consensually-reached guidelines for notability that are set for inclusion.^[1] For instance, biographies are handled by the criteria for people and musical artists by the criteria for music. A list is provided to the right. In the absence of an agreed upon subject-specific criteria guideline that contains an exception to this document, it is expected that the article be built using the framework above. Notability is considered an important aspect of article inclusion by the Wikipedia community. While there may be exceptions, it is generally expected that, if an article does not meet its specific guideline for notability, the article will be merged or deleted per the options below.

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PS In response to the statement above "WP:N is a guideline which serves to clarify the WP:NOT policy," it is shown over and over on Wikipedia that the de facto implementation of WP:N is that of inclusion while WP:NOT is of exclusion. They are definitely integrally related, but at this point, one is not a clarification of the other.

This is more or less covered by the fifth point of the GNG: "...a presumption, not a guarantee...." (But framing it as a rebuttable presumption sure leads to an awful lot of argument over rebuttals.) I do think the unqualified use of "presumed" in the nutshell and the lede section, while correct, leads to misunderstandings because many people seem to misinterpret presumption as a species of certainty rather than explicit provisionality. I would support language using "necessary" instead, so that people would be less likely to assume it sufficient. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Necessary" or variants is too strong (at least, for language used in the text itself, despite knowing what the intentions are): notability is (and likely will always remain) a guideline and should be used with common sense and a sprinkling of IAR. To say that notability is a "necessary by not sufficient condition" for a standalone article will invite a lot of problems despite that that is what we're agreeing about here. I think "presumption" is still good but it needs to be clear that other factors will come into play not limited to content policies and guidelines, and editorial decisions to merge smaller notable topics into a larger one. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I grant that "necessary" may be too strong for a mere guideline. I do want to support something like your boxed suggestion above, but would also like to find a way to remove or clarify the word "presumed" in the lede. Based on how I often see it used in discussion, I presume (!) that its meaning is not encompassed by a significant number of contributors' vocabularies. Perhaps something along the lines of your suggestion could be placed where the word is used, rather than in the following paragraph. (I am at a loss as to how the nutshell might be made more vernacular, yet still succinct.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My explanation is simple: When people want to discuss the inclusion criteria for a topic in the Wikipedia, "notability" is merely the shorthand way of saying it. Until you get very deep in the weeds, WP:NOT explains what doesn't belong and therefore WP:N offers some guidance as to what does belong. As we get deeper into the weeds there are general notability guidelines, subject (or specialized) notability guidelines, and then we arrive at the epistemological propositions that Ningauble introduces above. If you want to make a formal distinction between "notability" and the "inclusion criteria for a topic in the Wikipedia", then let's discuss that. Informally, they are the same thing. patsw (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To discreetly frame the concepts which I believe we have established as the crux of our issue here:

(1) "This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

This, we have agreed for the most part, will remain acceptable. There is question over the phrasing of "presumed." The use of the term "satisfy the inclusion criteria" may be a bit more complicated than necessary, as it seems to imply that inclusion is based solely on this test, when, in fact, there are more "inclusion criteria" (read: content policies, WP:NOT, WP:Encyclopedia, etc.) than just notability. What if it just said "it is presumed to satisfy the notability criteria for a stand-alone article." This is, in fact, what the statement means, and it makes it more clear that notability is just one "criterion" among others. It does not lead to the erroneous implication that Notability is the "[sole] inclusion criteria." For example, a topic can fail WP:NOTNEWS (and thus not satisfy an "inclusion criteria") while passing the GNG (thus satisfying the "inclusion criteria"); this is contradictory on its face. Thus I believe it should be qualified to state that if it passes GNG, it passes this inclusion criteria, sort of as I have framed above. Any comments?

(2) "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article."

The phrasing of this, I still believe, implies (quite strongly) that this guideline gives the final "yes or no," especially by the phrasing "whether or not." (It seems to give a hint of the logical concept iff). I'm not sure how this could be rephrased to more correctly denote its real intended meaning without making it circular (i.e., "notability refers to whether or not a topic is notable enough to merit its own article"). Comments?

(3) The more specific notability guidelines. WP:N(WEB), etc.

While I still believe this distinction is important, that would more effectively be left to another discussion.

(4) Masem's formulation: "Furthermore, topics that may pass notability guidelines may not be suitable for inclusion by other content policies."

At the moment, I am in support of this clarification (see my points above for the whole conversation). Any thoughts by other editors?

(5) "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below."

I (above) framed this statement as open to contention due to its phrasing, but I think that it is actually correct, but its intended meaning will be made more apparent with the clarifications outlined above. I just worried that the general reading of this sentence would go "a topic will merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below." I think it can stand how it is, nonetheless. Any comments? Keep in mind that "presumed," "enough," "to merit," and "general" are all slightly "interpretive" words, so when you add them all together in a sentence, it becomes quite "ill defined." You can only have so many words that are not "crystal clear" in a guideline. Even though it is true, as Masem states above, that the guideline ought to be "used with common sense and a sprinkling of IAR," we should still endeavor to make the policy as clear as possible on its own. IAR is a policy of its own, we don't have to "incorporate" it into other policies by making them sound more vague and ambiguous (or allowing them to stay in such a state). If common sense applies in a particular application of these rules, it should become readily apparent in the discourse at the venue where that debate is taking place, i.e., at an AfD; we shouldn't "weaken" these rules in order to facilitate common sense and IAR.

(6) An overarching inclusion policy, eg., Wikipeida:Article Inclusion

I brought this up as a side note, but I believe it should be left for another discussion.

I think that's quite enough topics for one discussion to come to a consensus on. Any thoughts on the particular points I have tried to discreetly frame above? What should we concern ourselves with specifically, and what should we ignore for now? Any thoughts?

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the notability is the final determinant of whether a topic merits its own standalone article because it provides verifiable evidence that the topic has sufficient sources to comply with Wikipedia content policies (CAT:CONTENT or more broadly WP:CSP). You could rephrase the statement "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article, by virtue that there exists sufficient verifiable source material to create an article that meets Wikipedia's content and style policies.
I disagree with Masem's view that topics that may pass notability guidelines may not be suitable for inclusion by other content policies. The reason why they pass is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of evidence; on closer examination, some reliable sources may not provide evidence of notability , so the phrase "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria" is correct, unless the presumption can be shown to be based on an incorrect evaluation of the evidence. For example, where a reliable source merely reproduces another source verbatim without commentary (such as press release), then that source no longer can be presumed to be evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of cases where other content policies void WP:N's presumption of a standalone article. The biggest one would be WP:BLP both for people that are only in the news for one event (where a lot of coverage is generated in a short time, then disappears indefinitely), and for what would amount to heavily negative bias coverage of a person if there's no counter-position information to provide. Presumption of notability from WP:N would support these articles, but for both practical and legal reasons, we don't carry such articles. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of BLP infingements, the sources would not be presumed to be sufficent to provide evidence of notability, either because the sources are not reliable or there are not enough of significant coverage. Whether or not those sources are negative or not is a seperate issue; just because a criminal gets a bad press, does not mean that he is not notable. Remember, notability does not directly limit article content, but policies such as WP:BLP do. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you can still have a case where there's significant coverage, and barring 1E, you'd have an article. Take, hypothetically, the case of a random stranger that stops to help recover a family's dog on the other side of the country. It is the "feel good" type of story that would easily get national coverage on the end of a local TV newscast or backpage of a newspaper. The random strange may be further profiled by his local paper or the local paper of the family on the opposite side of the country, or even a brief mention in a national magazine. Significant and reliable coverage? Check. Notable? Check. Passes 1E? No way. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For example, see: [Chris Parks Seattle Deserter]. I will comment later when I get a chance. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your mistaken, as your hypothetical case sounds like an example of WP:NTEMP. A few news stories are not enough to confer notability. Notability is definetly the Alpha and Omega for article inclusion, because a topic that will fail one or more of Wikipedia's content & style polices will also fail WP:N, and vice versa. Whether or not a topic passes or fails, it will always be due to sourcing issues, which provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. Something can fail WP:N and still pass every other policy and guideline.陣内_Jinnai 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. So my points, which I think are valid, have just been drowned out by a $н!₮load of other comments? That's it? The ouija board of edits has decided that this topic is done, and its initial issues are closed? Wow. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If my understanding of your arguements is correct, I believe that you are challenging the use of the term "Presumed", by which substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. I think you are trying to suggest that the validity of such a presumption is false and therefore notability is not be an all inclusive set of inclusion criteria. However, I do not think that is the case because that presumption is based on an examination of the sources used to provide evidence of notability, and for that reason, notability is both a necessary and sufficient condition for article inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that "Notability does not apply to citations" Talk:Illuminati? In this case, the claim in the article is that there are multiple modern groups that call themselves the Illuminati on some variation thereon. The webpages for the "groups" held to satisfy the sourcing requirement for that claim seem to be just that, webpages. Unless there's some evidence that there are real groups behind those webpages and that they are notable in some way, they wouldn't seem to warrant mention. Шизомби (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation sources need to be reliable, but do not require notability of those sources (and in another way, a notable group that may have an article on WP does not necessary mean that is a reliable source). What is consider "reliable" depends on a lot of details, and you may get more help at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RS/N. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I definitely follow you on there being articles about groups that are notable but not reliable. I find the point that a source can be not notable to be more curious. The issue is somewhat intertwined with reliability (does a webpage actually substantiate that a group exists), and WP:EL. On other pages, I've seen NN groups removed as linkspam or the like. Шизомби (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is a lot simpler: the source of a citation does not need to have its own Wikipedia article to be consider reliable enough to be used as a citation in the Wikipedia. The converse is true: that a source with its own Wikipedia article is not necessarily a reliable source for a citation. WP:RS is its own guideline. patsw (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct. A small local newspaper may not be independently notable, but that doesn't make it unreliable. Perhaps more relevantly, an official web site is usually not independently notable, but can usually be considered reliable for data about the web site's subject. Powers ^T 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reliable for data, but of course not indicative of notability because it is not independent of the subject. Dlabtot (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Some proposals of the strategic planning concern notability specifically those two.

More proposals concerning notability will probably come but currently that just those two --KrebMarkt 07:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There still seems to be misunderstaning of what notability is in terms of inclusion of topics in Wikipedia. I therefore propose the following rewrite:

This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then it is presumed that sufficient coverage exists for inclusion as a standalone article which meets Wikipedia's content policies.

I propose making these changes to the lead/preamble section, but only if other editors agree that this captures the meaning of the term "notability" as it is used in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the rest, but we cannot include style policies as part of why notability is used. If something fails style but is ok by content and notability inclusion, that's cleanup, not merging or deletion (though that may include an editorial decision to merge). --MASEM (t) 11:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia's content and style policies (WP:CSP), I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions is deemed to be a style rather than a content policy. Perhaps WP:CSP needs to be changed to just content policy, but naming convention is still an important aspect of article inclusion, and so cannot be ignored. If anyone can suggest how this can be made clearer, that would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposal is headed in a good direction and would support this in favor of the current wording which is kind of all over the place without providing good clear information/understandable instructions.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why something like Naming Conventions have anything to do with notability. Again, if a topic meets content and notability policy/guidelines, but fails style, that's correctable without even considering deletion. Yes, it is important to state that notability guides towards our content policies, but let's not confusion the style aspect of it. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

←Generally agree a reasonable direction, but think the reference to the CSP is confusing rather than illuminating. ^Bongo_matic 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely what misunderstandings would this new wording clear up? And why drop the references to the SNGs? I think that any proposal should be clear on who would oppose it; those who are "misunderstanding" notability do not, after all, think that they misunderstand it—which interpretations are you seeking to render impossible? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no proposal to drop the reference to SNGs - that remains the same, and follows the text shown above as normal. The proposal is designed to explain why a topic merits its own article if it is notable, which is not explained in the current version. At the moment, there is a reference to "inclusion criteria" but that is not explained. So as things stand, the preamble is self-referencing: a topic can have its own standalone article if it is notable, which is defined in WP:GNG, and if it meets these criteria, then it is notable, in which case....it can have its own standalone article. What is missing, or is not stated explicitly is that compliance with Wikipedia content policies is the route by which articles are included as or excluded from being standalone articles, and that notability provides evidence of compliance, or can be presumed to provide such evidence. I am probably not explaining myself clearly, but the bottom line is that notability is a guideline that serves Wikipedia's content policies, but the current wording does not make this clear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but who is making errors regarding what notability is? What practical, often-encountered problem will this change resolve? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the current version. This re-write seems clumsy and confusing. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In answer to RJC, the problem is that current version is self-referencing, and gives the impression that the notability can be changed to provide exemptions so that certain topics don't have to abide by the general notability guideline. The reality is that WP:N is a guideline that serves Wikipedia's content policies, and it is these polices that determine whether a topic is suitable for inclusion or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

current version... gives the impression that the notability can be changed to provide exemptions so that certain topics don't have to abide by the general notability guideline - I don't agree that it gives that impression at all. Dlabtot (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

I think the "new" above is version is going backwards, and has completely confused N and V. these are two separate requirements: the subject must be N, the contents must be V. The requirement for sources to write an articles calls for adequately reliable sources, not necessarily sources of any particular type. The present 2RS requirement is just a surrogate for the subject being worthy of coverage. I suggest instead (using as much of the suggested language as possible) -- consider this a rough draft; but i thought it well to get something down quickly--

For articles to be included in Wikipedia, they must pass several screens:

1. They must be worth writing about: this is known as "notability"-- The term "notability" is a reflection of a topic's importance, merit or worthiness for encyclopedic treatment. Notability is not the same as fame or popularity of a topic — famous or popular subjects are always notable, but so are subjects which have not achieved those very high standards. In determining this, the criteria appropriate to the subject are used. These criteria are proposed by those interested in the topic area, subject to acceptance by consensus of the general community. Where there are no generally agreed criteria, we normally use the surrogate criterion of whether the topic been the subject of substantial published commentary from reliable sources independent of the topic itself. It is presumed in the absence of other criteria, that subjects for which there are multiple reliable independent sources offering substantial coverage are notable. If an article has such sources, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to demonstrate that the article is not suitable for the encyclopedia.

2. There are some types of material, which, however much they may be worth writing about somewhere, are not considered suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, such as original research, routine news items, material designed only to denigrate or promote a subject, directories, travel guides, and so on: These restrictions are listed at WP:NOT.

3. There are special restrictions for biographical material about living humans to ensure accuracy , objectivity ,and to avoid harm to individuals:, as detailed in WP:BLP

4. All articles must also be verifiable,as specified in WP:V, and this requires reliable sources, as detailed in WP:RS. These usually but not necessarily will best be secondary source independent of the subject. A topic may be fascinating and topical while still not having sufficient verifiable source material--in which case an article cannot be written.

5. Even if all the conditions are met, it may still be more appropriate to combine minor topics into combination articles. This is difficult to specify exactly in general terms and requires consensus of those interested in the subject, as accepted by the general community.

6. As always at Wikipedia (as specified by WP:IAR) , the community having made the rules, is free to ignore or vary them, whether in the direction of including or not including an article, if there is consensus that doing so will improve the encyclopedia.

DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest changing the lead to "For a topic to merit a standalone article on Wikipedia..." It's not that we're "including articles" ,but we are including topics, and most of the time, using notability to determine if that's a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What problem does this solve? Are there people adding articles which they claim are not required to conform to the seven content policies (WP:BLP, WP:NAME, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:FUC, WP:V) because they pass WP:N? Where's the evidence of that going on? patsw (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there are people who create articles that violate WP:NOT quite often and contend they pass WP:N such as directories or unreleased media such as games. I think Gavin is trying to say there are people violating WP:NAME and WP:NPOV and using WP:V and WP:N to justify it. I don't see evidence of this, but that's what it seems like to me.陣内_Jinnai 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But there are still tons of people here who don't know that. So maybe obscure towns may still be notable, but are thousands of individual plant species? User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao has created about 1800 articles with AWB, all species of the genus Bulbophyllum. Hell, there isn't a damn thing on those pages other than "Bulbophyllum abbreviatum is a species of orchid in the genus Bulbophyllum." List of Bulbophyllum species is more freaking useful than that because it has a person and a year! and of course there's User:Dr. Blofeld, who is so damn lazy he can't even put the name of the topic in the article but instead uses {{PAGENAME}} on his stubs. Today he's doing List of rivers of Bolivia. Sure, make all the articles on French communes, etc. you want: people actually live there, but every river and lake (List of lakes in Nova Scotia) in the world?? Many of these will NEVER be expanded, and the main list works just fine. Where do they get this junk that existence equals notability? IF people are looking for this, the main list is actually more useful than a single sentence! Every single one of these violates the general notability guideline. None of these topics have significant coverage, just a listing in an atlas or species database. Creating more articles like these does nothing but dilute the quality of Wikipedia. I check WP:Good articles often, and it dismays me to see that only 1 of 276 articles is good or featured, and this number is getting worse because of these mass useless stub creations. It's quality, not quantity, people! My policy is to never create a new article until there's actually enough info to warrant one. They claim that having the article already created makes it easier for others to add to it, but I've seen many stubs last for years without another edit. More information simply doesn't exist! Sure, maybe articles on towns can be expanded, but every single river, lake, and species is simply not notable and should not have an article. Reywas92^Talk 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear. I'm completely opposed to long lists of un-notable items. But on this very page we have someone arguing that Wikipedia should have an article that lists all pinball machines that ever existed, so not everyone agrees. Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already crossed swords with Dr Blofeld regarding Semi-automatedcreation of unreferenced stubs which is a similar situation relating to the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, in which hundreds of German stubs were translated and blind copied into English Wikipedia. Basically, the mass creation of non-notable article stubs is effectively a means of undermining Wikipedia content policies by the back door; it seems there is no duty of care by these editors using automated tools to check that the articles topics are notable. I have raided this at WP:Village Pump reported the issue to WP:ANI to get this user blocked. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It turns out, though, when one does the research, that almost all of his stubs are verifiable and almost all of them notable. What he did that proved to cause difficulties was to introduce them as minimal stubs, and expect people to take him at his word as an experienced editor that the articles could be completed. Such has been true of other mass article stub creation projects also--except for some so incompetently programmed as to get the wrong information, the topics of all of them have in fact been mostly notable (with a record much better than the manual creation of articles, about half of which get rejected). I believe he intended to complete them within an additional day or two; this was of course not realistic. That was really his only error--he would have been more prudent to have limited his rate to what he could do more adequately. He is one of the best editors we have ever had, and the attempt to chase him from the project was extremely discreditable. Alas, being an excellent editor has many times been shown not to correlate with ability to navigate wikipolitics. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the qualification "when you do the research", which is another way of saying "there is no evidence". Notability requires verifiable evidence, not personal assurance. And just because a topic is verifiable that does not mean it is suitable for inclusion as a standalone article. I think you are selectively reading Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, and misunderstanding what is going on here. What is the point of transcribing all of Wikispecies into Wikipedia? To create a mirror of Wikispecies in Wikipedia? To undermine Wikispecies? T subvert WP:NOT by creating so many stubs that individual editors can't add evidence of notability in a thousand years? I see no evidence that these articles serve any purpose of other than the aggrandizement of Ser Amantio di Nicolao opinion of himself; all the problems associated with the creation of so many stubs that contravene Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will have to be cleaned up by someone else. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, it isn't a way of saying "there is no evidence". It's a way of saying "the evidence is not cited in the article", and I would invite you to try translating material from the German Wikipedia a few times yourself before criticising the others that do it, because de.wiki has a totally different citation culture from ours. On de.wiki, you can write it if other editors think it's true, but on en.wiki you can write it if it's sourced. Which means you're generally translating material that's true, but not sourced.

  That's not meant as an endorsement of de.wiki's way of doing things, which would not work for us at all. But it's a practical obstacle to translating material from de.wiki that needs to be recognised.

  I think DGG's point of view—which I share—is that the onus is not particularly on the translator to source the article. It's on everyone. If you find an uncited article, then you should go and source it.

  And that's the whole message. Rather than whining about content creators failing to comply with some particular guideline, go and help them reach compliance. Rather than trying to place the burden of evidence solely on them, accept some of that burden on yourself. Wikipedia is about a process of collaborative evolution towards perfection and those who are most concerned about sources have a constructive part to play.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence falls on Ser Amantio di Nicolao to ensure that the articles he creates comply with the notability guideline, not the readers of his articles. He may think that a tertiary source is sufficient, but its not; significant coverage from reliable secondary sources is what is needed. He might think that blind copying of articles from Wikispecies is appropriate, but I think he is timewasting. I think your suggestion that editors are not responsible for quality control of their own work is intellectually bankrupt: each and every one of us has to be responsible for upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - that is what makes us autonomous, and ensures we are not dependent on others for our freedom. It is just lazy thinking that other editors are going to wipe Ser Amantio's nose for him, makeup his bed and tie his shoelaces and is definetly a step backwards in terms of the evolution of Wikipedia. AfD nomination of Bulbophyllum abbreviatum can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbophyllum abbreviatum. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I think the step backwards would be to require content creators to be responsible for the content they write. I find the said tendency destructive and retrograde and I deplore it. Looking for sources is everyone's responsibility, not an onus to be placed purely on content creators.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Since the above nomination was snow kept within three hours, I conclude that your position is not widely-shared.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between responsible editing and editor ownership of articles. The latter means that no one is allowed to change what was written; the former suggests that he should be more careful about what he writes in the first place. While it might be unfair not to help in the search for sources, this is only because there is a assumption that the editor had reason to think the material noteworthy and verifiable when it was added in the first place. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)