Archive 55 ← Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 → Archive 65

Please clarify confusing notability issue for AfD purposes

Hi. I am involved in two AfD discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CE Holkar‎ concerning notability of articles about sports players which seem to meet the subject-specific conditions of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) but, it is argued, do not meet the bigger picture conditions of the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

One editor has argued that the articles must be kept because, per this Wikipedia:Notability guideline,

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

One of the guidelines in the box on the right is sports. He concludes that whether or not the articles meet GNG is irrelevant, as they meet the SSG, as specified by our overarching notability guideline (in the introduction of this project page).

Another editor, who wants the articles deleted because he thinks they fail the GNG, has answered by saying that there was a village pump policy debate surrounding this issue and consensus was clear that GNG overrules any SSG, not the other way around.

It would seem to me that there is a serious inconsistency here because, if the "village pump policy debate" outcome is correct, the notability guideline introduction is out of date and should be amended to say that GNG overrules SSG. If the debate outcome has no effect on the guideline and the current notability wording is still effective, something needs to be done to ensure that it is consistently followed at AfD discussions. My understanding, having read comments by other editors, is that some articles have already been deleted because they did not meet the wider GNG even though they did meet the specific SSG.

This is an unsatisfactory situation. Please can you provide a solution? Regards, Waj (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Waj: The guideline page itself clarifies it. Under "Applicable Policies and Guidelines:" "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." (emphasis added) So the very page you're citing makes crystal clear that articles must meet the GNG. While meeting one of the "sports" criteria creates a presumption that it will, that is a rebuttable presumption if it turns out sufficient references don't in fact exist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Notability by either the GNG or the SNGs are a presumption that we can expand the article to meet all content policies (V, NOR, NPOV, NOT) and thus allow the standalone article. That is, while we do allow the NSPORTS criteria to assert presumption for a standalone, we need more coverage ultimately to validate that presumption. However, to challenge that presumption, one is required to follow the steps of WP:BEFORE to demonstrate that there are actually no further sources coming (which includes looking to print sources which might be local). That's the only way to properly challenge the presumption at AFD. --Masem (t) 17:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm grateful to TonyBallioni, Masem, Reyk and Seraphimblade. I'm afraid I still have difficulty with this because Wikipedia:Notability says an article is merited if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. This, to me, says the two are equal (either one or the other). That is contradicted by Wikipedia:Notability (sports) which says, as Seraphimblade quoted, that (sports) articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline in addition to being verified. What makes it worse is that, in the introduction to NSPORT, it repeats WP:N by saying in bold that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". I'm afraid it doesn't help and this to me is a very unsatisfactory situation because it is ambiguous and contradictory. I think that Tony's solution would help and really it needs to be done as soon as possible. As you say, Tony, because the site is "relied upon by the public". Regards, Waj (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The line " In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." contradicts what NSport already establishes. I'm going to address that on that page, but that line needs to go because it is flatout wrong. --Masem (t) 21:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Masem. I think that will help the situation enormously. Regards, Waj (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately, a subject is eligible for a standalone article if there is consensus for that subject to have an article. GNG and the SNGs are useful proxies for how consensus has developed over time, so that we don’t have to constantly flood AFD with articles and waste a lot of editors’ time. As Seraphimblade and Masem properly note, both the GNG and SNGs are rebuttable presumptions, and no guideline is ultimately dispositive – AFD is dispositive. However, The more we can build broad consensus in SNGs, the less time we have to waste on AFDs and/or risk inconsistent results due to lack of AFD participation.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
As described in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ, the sports-related notability guidelines were explicitly created to provide a guideline to avoid rapid deletion of articles if the written text in the article did not immediately provide sources indicating that the general notability guideline is met by the subject. Meeting the sports-specific notability guidelines is considered to be an excellent indicator that sources meeting the general notability guideline can be found, given some time to uncover them. The article should always have some sources indicating that either the appropriate sports-related notability guideline or GNG is met, so anyone reviewing the article will have a way to verify the basis for the presumption of notability, and that is what the quoted sentence in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is referring to. If after due diligence, it is determined that in spite of the sports-related notability guideline being met, the general notability guideline is highly unlikely to be met, then the article fails Wikipedia's standards of having an article. isaacl (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The quoted sentence is inconsistent with the key point expressed in both guidelines and it must be changed to correct the ambiguity. An FAQ cannot have any official status, but if it repeats inconsistency then it too needs to be amended or it confuses editors and readers alike and is not fit for purpose as an FAQ. I as a new member am confused, hence this discussion. If an article can pass either the GNG or the SSG then there can be no problem with it having presumed notability, subject to verification and other policies. To assert that it must pass both is ridiculous because then it would be illogical to have both; one would suffice. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The quoted sentence says The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. It doesn't say that the article must pass both sets of criteria. Getting the wording of the guidance changed has, unfortunately, not received consensus approval so far. The FAQ provides context to understand the motivation of the first three paragraphs of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). In an ideal world, a new article would immediately identify appropriate sources to illustrate that the general notability guideline has been met. The real-world compromise we have to avoid wasting time deleting and recreating articles is a set of rules of thumb that help us identify subjects that are highly likely to already have appropriate coverage that meets the general notability guideline, even if the current article text does not list them. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
No, that is not the sentence in question. The sentence is "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline" as quoted by Masem above. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's that sentence which you quoted above for which I was providing additional clarification (I said the quoted sentence in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). isaacl (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This situation is easily sortable. The two basic general notability guidelines contradict each other rendering each of them completely and utterly null and void, meaning the only, completely fair, NPOV way of sorting this out is going by subject-specific notability guidelines. Frankly anyone who doesn't do so is in breach of NPOV and has no interest working on an NPOV project. Bobo. 17:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  • How about we delete bad sourcing instead of using notability as a middle man?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Further insights

Over the holiday, I had a bit of inspiration of how better to see notability, the GNG, and the SNG, that might require a significant change in this guideline that doesn't affect the practice of notability but provides the clarity we currently lack.

First, we have to understand that notability is one possible measure of showing the "encyclopedicness" of a topic. That of course brings up what is "encyclopedicness" and that is best thought of as the balance between WP:V - that we can validate a fact to a reliable source - and WP:NOT - that not every published fact is necessarily appropriate for inclusion. There are a lot of other things that feed this notion of "encyclopedicness", such as that since we consider ourselves a gazetter, we include every recognized place name regardless of any other aspects. Or because we are a reference work, we include core data tables like the Periodic Table of Elements without comment. (In other words, notability is not applicable 100% of the time)

However, the bulk of the topics on WP are shown their "encyclopedicness" through the concept of notability, which we have used as a topic receiving significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. This measure or notability, where an article's "encyclopedicness" will not be questioned, is very subjective, but as I described above, it increases in an exponential fashion with the more reliable, in-depth coverage of a topic that you can obtain, and the more long-tail, retrospective aspects that come to light (not a burst of coverage). What that level is, is hard to say, but I would say that if you take the GNG's metrics, that's not even the bare minimum where "notability" is assured. Yes, you might find two or three sources to show the GNG but if that's all that can ever be found, and there's no other means for the topic to have "encyclopedicness" met, then we'd still likely delete it. We can't expect all topics to have the extensive amount of coverage of major topics like World War II, The Bible, Albert Einstein, etc. but we do expect in the long term something more substance than two or three sources. Unfortunately, where notability is met is very subjective, and very much "I'll know it when I see it".

This is where the GNG/SNG come in. Whereas notability is meant to help balance WP:V and WP:NOT, the GNG/SNG are meant to balance those that judge the instantaneous state of an article, and the fact that we have no deadline to get these articles right. These NGs exist to prevent sticklers on quality from immediately seeking deletion for articles they don't like because they don't feel the current state shows notability, and give time to the article creators and editors to find more sources or wait for more sources to come around. They still represent the presumption of notability, that if no further sourcing can be found through a reasonable conclusive search, then deletion of a topic that will never reach notability is well in line.

This thus establishes what should be the clear distinction between the GNG (which, as I said, if just met is not sufficient to met notability), and the SNG. The GNG is a source-based measure for presumption (if some secondary sources exist, then likely additional secondary sources can be found). The SNGs are a merit-based measure (if a topic has received a merit of a type in its field, then based on past examples it will likely receive additional secondary sources). This makes it clear that we should be treating the presumption of notability as "GNG or SNG" , not "and", nor "SNG to meet the GNG". Both are still presumptions, and thus editors are still encouraged to expand with sourcing as they continue to develop it; each source they can add will help to satisfy more and more people as to the topic showing true notability and having its "encyclopedicness" satisfied, so that no one will question why we have an article on it.

So what does this mean in terms of this page? The core thing I would do is move GNG and listing the SNGs to a separate page, and possibly bring in the stuff from WP:BEFORE into that, since these explain how the presumption of notability works, what the end goals for editors should be, and how the presumption should be challenged at AFD. The current WP:N page I would leave to explain the ideas of "encyclopedicness" (a term I would love to find a better version of), how that is a balance between all published facts and what we are not, how notability is used to measure that for most topics (but where there are exceptions), and then reference to the GNG/SNG page (to make is clear the GNG is not the same as notability) and explain what purpose they serve. We also may need to remain the GNG and SNG to "General Notability Presumption Guideline" and "Subject-specific Notability Presumption Guidelines", to make it clear neither the GNG and the SNGs equate to notability, only that the trend to reach notability appears to be met.

I'm pretty confident that taken all this as a whole, it still represents practice (I'm not redefining how we do things) but it better explains the roles of WP:N, the GNG and the SNGs in a manner to make it clear how they all apply, better than our current page does and avoids issues on the SNGs pages like in the above section. --Masem (t) 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I like that you are doing such a much-needed analysis. And I agree with much of what you wrote. Also you attempt to tackle the fuzzy chaos between GNG and SNG's. But I think that your attempt to solve that chaos by defining SNG's as simply a temporary way in for non-mature articles misses the mark. Enclyclopicness is also very useful word for Wikipedia, but I think it logically relates more to wp:not than to notability. I also think that your analysis has yet to include two big factors. One is the GNG is missing a needed guiding light as to what it supposed to do. As a result a portion of it is rudderless and becomes circular / self-referential in the missing areas. (I.E. the goal of the guideline is to do whatever the guideline says) Most other policies get by without this as it's pretty clear. For GNG, the obvious only partially covers it. The guiding light that most people have in their heads could be described as: "Apply an additional criteria of real-world notability where the main metric is coverage in wp:RS suitable sources, and which sets a level of real-world notability suitable for an encyclopedia that is only going to have 10 or 20 million articles." Second, I think that an underlying impetus for the existence of SNGs is that the ratio of suitable coverage in sources to actual notability varies dramatically between fields. My grand-nephew's pewee league baseball team gets plenty of RS coverage to meet wp:GNG, but should fail the wp:notability test. Conversely, every species of animal should probably meet wp:notability, but most don't have in-depthe coverage in a secondary (not tertiary) source. In short, by failing to acknowledge and handle this disparity, GNG is too ham-handed. IMO the solution would be to have GNG acknowledge this and calibrate itself to that, and then eliminate the SNG's. Finally, an observation that if the logical "OR" (or the alternative logical "AND") between having to meet GNG and/or the SNG were strictly implemented, we would have a mess. In each case, the small group that runs the SNG could override the GNG towards inclusion or exclusion. As long as we have the bad situation of conflicting guidelines existing, I think that the current relationship is best. Which is basically a logical "OR", but with the GNG or the SNG having some influence when the other is applied, and the GNG having significant influence on the design of SNG's. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to stress the one observation that I came to, that notability is not equal to the GNG, or vice versa. In light of what I talk about above, just meeting the current GNG should not be seen as a minimum to meet notability, it is only a likeliness for notability to be met to allow for a standalone article. Making this distinction alleviates your concerns about the logcal "or" in "GNG or SNG", because as before, with many taking the GNG to be equal to notability, you run into the problems you describe. Instead, by distinguishing the GNG from notability, you can now classify the GNG and the SNG as both equivalent (logical "or") in how they are indicators of likelihood towards notability. Pulling the GNG out of WP:N would go a long way to making clear the historical and present distinction of the relationship between N, GNG and SNGs. --Masem (t) 18:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I've discussed above, the subject-area specific notability guidelines are typically achievement-based standards for having an article, rather than coverage-based. The key issue that I raised above is that domain expertise is required to establish these standards, and so the community must be willing to cede its veto power over article creation to a smaller subset of editors, managing the potential risk of the standard being set at a level where it is difficult for the volunteer community to maintain the resulting qualifying articles. isaacl (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

See, my impression is that WP:GNG has always been a list of criteria that say "if the topic meets this guidance, it means there is enough material that a policy compliant article can be written about it", following the arguments laid out in WP:WHYN. And that SNGs exist at least in part (but not exclusively) as a simplified "if the item meets the SNG that implies that it also meets GNG" proxy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The general notability guideline describes the type of coverage required to indicate that a subject meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article. Many of the subject-specific notability guidelines provide specific achievement criteria that, if met, indicate a high probability of the general notability guideline being met, as you state. At present, the ultimate test falls back on the quality and nature of independent, neutral, non-promotional, third-party coverage, because the community as a whole has not agreed upon achievement-based criteria. (The community has generally not liked open-ended "encyclopedic" criteria for having an article, because different people have different sets of values regarding what is encyclopedic. For example, some people think only the very elite sportspersons have any lasting impact on society and so are the only ones that should be covered.) isaacl (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, domain expertise is critical at AFD for those reasons, but domain expertise can also cause blindness in those areas, which is what the MMA situation. I think editors can distinguish using their domain knowledge to help other editors judge encyclopedicness/notability backed by sourcing evidence without pleading towards evidence-less importance. --Masem (t) 20:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
There's enough mainstream knowledge of MMA that the general community was able to evaluate the proposed criteria. But science-domain specific criteria for professors, for example, have never arisen because the community isn't willing to delegate the decision of inclusion to those who have the appropriate context. Because of fear of blind spots, I am doubtful that the community will shift its position on subject-specific standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Masem, what is Wikipedia notability if not wp:Notability / GNG? I'm asking this because you seem to imply that there already is a wiki-definition outside of this. Or are you referring to a real-world meaning? My answer is that it is missing and should be something like the one sentence missing "guiding light" that I proposed above, and then that the guidelines implement that. On another note, I think that we subconciously we skew notability based on enclyclopedicness rather than wp:not being totally separate. For example, I think that intuitively the bar is set lower for an animal species or a town, and rightly so. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

How I see it in the context here is that notability is a measure of how well-covered a topic is in secondary sources (effectively our current wiki-meaning). There is a point where notability reaches a certain threshold that nobody would question about why we have an article about this in WP, because its clearly covered to a great degree in sources. What that threshold is impossible to define since it will vary for all, but ideally it should be a case where the article has enough sourcing to be as equivocally comprehensive and meeting all content policies (NOR/NPOV) as other articles from the same topic field that are already considered notable.
Then with that, the GNG represents one threshold along this notability metric. It is not the same as the above threshold where no one would question the retention of a standalone, and is in fact far below that, but it is meant to allow for the likeliness that given time, we can increase the sourcing on the topic to reach the higher metric. Theoretical example, I write an article on a film based on three sources, one being a long-form interview with the director shortly after production started, and two others that talk about early casting calls. That's clearly a GNG threshold, but not a notability threshold. Should that film end up being cancelled with little said of its cancellation beyond "studio said it cost too much", and there's no other proven sources out there, then while the GNG has been met, its very unlikely that we'll ever get to the higher notability threshold (which for a film would include it actually being released, critical reception, box office performance, etc.) so deletion or merge would then be the appropriate action. Hopefully this is clearer. (I think part of this is having editors trying to pick my brain to understand my thoughts here better - see it but can make the explanations too confusing :P) --Masem (t) 20:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, so you are saying that all wikipedia notability revolves around sourcing, and the GNG sets only one level/threshold of that. But then do you say hat that concept can be completely dropped if SNG's (with their often non-sourcing criteria) are being used, or does it go back to your initial post where you said that SNG's are used only temporarily to let an article develop?North8000 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
In my scheme, the SNGs are merit-based criteria that suggest that the likelihood for source-based notability can eventually be met, giving editors the allowance for a standalone to work towards that. --Masem (t) 01:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
However, our notability guidelines were written back in the days when we thought more in terms of giving “guidance”, not writing “rules”... X is an indication that Y is likely (with lots of grey zones understood to exist)... if a criteria (sourcing or otherwise) is met, then the subject MIGHT BE notable:
The only “rule” regarding notability is this: “an article topic or subject is deemed notable by consensus.” The SNGs and even GNG are guidance... advice to help us reach consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Agreed 100%. I like DGG's previous comments on this that we have turned the GNG into a religion, when it was never intended that way. The guideline itself is explicit on two points: being notable (i.e. passing the totality of WP:N) is not a guarantee of inclusion and that a failure of the NOT policy and a passage of the GNG is not a passage of WP:N. I agree with your above wording that we need to change it from presumed to be likely, and unless we hear objections to that in the next few days, I think we can do it boldly with a footnote as Masem has mentioned. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Not against this change but keep in mind "presumed" replicates across most SNGs. --Masem (t) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I’ve watched this discussion with interest, as for the most part, SNGs are irrelevant to the work that I do—increasing the visibility on minorities, women and people from developing or non-English speaking countries. I rarely comment on policy discussions, as I find the process intimidating and non-productive for the most part. The problem with SNGs is that, while they may be merit-based, they tend to be overly biased toward linear hierarchical accomplishments which may not be universal. For example, while PROF might be valid in a first world country, in a developing nation in which up until five years ago graduating from elementary school was adequate prerequisite to become a teacher, the SNG is unrealistic as a universal measure of accomplishment. Likewise as has been pointed out multiple times in AFDs, the guidelines contain unintentional bias, as they do not take into account systemic biases which effect gender in both media coverage and hiring/publishing practices. For creative people the guidelines are also biased toward the developed world, i.e. phrases such as “national awards/music charts”, “international acclaim”, “featured on national radio or television”, “critical acclaim”, “represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums”, or “appears in standard reference books”. (I could list others, but these two SNG illustrate the point). These are standards that may not be applicable in a country where one is lucky to be published in a small run by a publisher with limited resources and little likelihood of funds to publish later editions, has not developed such things as national charts or art galleries, or is not likely to catch the attention of international audiences. If adequate sourcing exists, to confirm that the topic is unique, relevant, or worthy of an encyclopedia article weighing the time and place, historical context and impact, notability is met. For articles on historic women and minorities, or events which concerned them, if sufficient RS material exists to develop a comprehensive article, there is an “almost inherent indication” of notability, as they were routinely excluded from standard reference books and media in general. Guidelines are simply that, tools. By making them rules, we create a rigid exclusionary path that I am not sure we want to foster. Thank you Masem for opening a discussion on the guidelines, as they could use improvement and clarification, though I am skeptical of whether there is a means or the will to overcome the inherent problems. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Only to comment that there is the inherent bias that WP:V creates - we are always going to be biased to Western/first-world topics because these places have massive amounts of printing and sources to pull from ,while more desolate areas and third-world countries barely have functioning press. We do alleviate some of this bias by allowing foreign-language sources to meet WP:V, but still doesn't change the fact that WP:V (and all subsequent policy and guidelines dependent on it, including WP:N) favors topics where there large numbers of sources. This is why we can't really use inclusion guidelines, because if we include broad swaths of topics based on some factual element (eg high/secondary schools), there is not always going to be a way for WP:V to be met, unless there is global consensus that including that broad swath of topic meet our purpose, as would absolutely be the case for geographic locations. --Masem (t) 17:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
IMO, SNGs actually very strongly favour underrepresented groups and help to decrease systemic bias. That's part of the reason deletionists hate them: the Cricketer from a developing country is included, the minor politician from a subnational legislature in Asia gets in, etc. The GNG is actually *much* more difficult for them to meet. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Though we still need to remember that SNGs are "likelihood to be notable", they are not absolute allowances. And thus in these less-developed countries, those people may never ever have sourcing come about. But we do have to consider time as well and the "no deadline" factor. Let's take a country like India which has made great economic strides in the last several decades improving the sources available, but, say, 50 years ago, would have been considered third-world. Cricket players from the last two decades will probably have a good chance of getting more sources with India's growing economy, but not those from the 1950s. However, that's why its critical to remember that the onus is on the AFD nom to show sources don't exist, we're going to give the benefit of the doubt particularly for both the place and the time period that notability is likely until one can show that through a search of local papers from that time period that there very much likely no other sourcing. (This is why I stress that moving the GNG/SNG notions out of this page and bringing those with elements of BEFORE, to explain how we practice identifying likely notability and how to challenge that, would help a lot without actually changing the practice).
If we want to include a class of topics without regards to even the third-party sourcing requirement of WP:V, that's going to be an inclusion guideline and that would need global consensus to include. (Not saying that can't be done in any of these cases, just that it does need to be a community agreed decision) --Masem (t) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, I think you place too much emphasis on large RfCs and not enough on individual AfDs, which is where the policies are actually decided as practice is policy (many local consensuses are the only way to form a site-wide consensus. Otherwise you get an RfC with no answer because no one can agree). In the case f PROF, in practice we are much more lenient on the 3rd party sourcing at almost all AfDs. Same with elected officials at the sub-national level. We don't need an RfC to codify this. The information must be verifiable, but what we require for verification shifts according to the subject. If the community decides it wants to strictly enforce a written policy more strongly than it currently does, we can do it simply by voting to delete at AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep. In fact, we are now in the completely perverse situation that AfDs that have clearly reached a consensus can be nullified because of discussions like this one, and discussion like this one grind to a halt because those AfDs are being closed as no consensus. Reyk YO! 17:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This goes back to what I said about OUTCOMES. OUTCOMES is a catch-22 all around, and we need to dismantle that somehow (and very slowly and carefully). AFDs while not "closed" to the community rarely attract wide attention outside of anyone interested in the topic area due to how we advertise these via deletion sorting. If all such interested people acted rationally and put aside their love of the topic to evaluate why the article is at AFD, rather than "this is important, it must be kept!", then we'd not be in this situation. But instead, when AFDs are piled on by interested editors that say articles of a topic type should be kept, and claiming that that numerous AFDs that close this way demonstrate consensus for that topic area, that's not global consensus that we should be having. (Again, the MMA situation from a few years back) There should be no problem with these interested groups wanting to keep classes of articles to suggest an SNG to be accepted by the community as a whole (which should be a relatively easy barrier), or to propose to the community as a whole as written automatic inclusion standards that leaves no doubt to their importance (avoiding the dubious nature of OUTCOMES), but we also have to recognize the community may reject those, as happened at WP:NSCHOOLS or WP:NFICT. AFDs should help inform the formation of SNG or an automatic inclusion standard for a class of articles, but they should not override the core issues of WP:V and by extension WP:N. --Masem (t) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
We need a balance because it's inefficient to require all interested parties to show up to AfD after AfD indefinitely in order to maintain an outcome. There is a place for group conversation to establish a consensus that can be used to validate decisions made in AfD discussions. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
And they don't work. As we saw with the schools and NSPORTS RfC, they only muddy the waters and invite supervoting, often by non-admin closers, because of the desire to provide sweeping answers. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Lots of topic-specific notability guidelines have worked well in practice. And the sports-related ones continue to be effective at lots of discussions. It's wasteful to ask all interested parties to show up to every AfD so they can outvote the other side. We may as well not have guidelines if they can't be used to guide decisions. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. SNGs work wonderfully well. The issue comes when we have broad reform attempts that put questions that have not already achieved consensus to the community. RfCs only work when we need to formalize a pre-existing consensus where questions have been raised. Otherwise they muddy the waters and create more questions than they provide answers. Until we are reasonably certain on what the outcome would be, it is much better to let consensus develop organically and tweak any proposals to accommodate what the community does, rather than have guidelines dictate what it should do. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that guidelines are best established based on what the community has historically done. Ultimately, it will require a group discussion to determine the guideline and enact it. After that, this guidance should be given the weight of the establishing consensus. It should not be necessary to reaffirm the consensus repeatedly at AfD. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The failure to get NSCHOOLS as a guideline shows the community rejected the opinion of a small group of editors claiming every school was important. NSPORTS got passed with global input, defering to sports projects to proper SNG guideance. That's how things should work. --Masem (t) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The NSPORTS close directly contradicted WP:N and answered a question never asked without being advertised as an RfC to change N. It might be the worst RfC close I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The schools RfC close also was pontificating on questions never asked and never put to the community, and the actual close, as expressed by the closers when asked for clarification, wasno consensus to the question asked, which had nothing to do with OUTCOMES at all, but was about whether school notability should be raised to the guideline level. Both were textbook examples of how RfCs should not be run or closed (and I was the one who formulated the flawed question to the schools RfC.) Both closes have made it impossible to predict the outcome of any AfD in the topic areas and an admin can essentially close any AfD in either area however they want now and it won't be overturned at DRV. That is a firm negative for the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The RfC on the sports-specific notability guidelines affirmed the consensus that has been agreed upon for years now. The sports-specific notability guidelines, by consensus agreement at their creation and ever since, provide guidance on when the general notability guideline is likely to be met. But upon being challenged, editors must determine if there are appropriate sources meeting the general notability guideline for the articles in question. Closers (admin or not) of discussions at AfD or deletion review who ignore this consensus are replacing substituting their own judgment for that of the community. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
That is not the super vote: you are correct on the SSG. The super vote was that it claimed that no SNG can override the GNG, which directly contradicts WP:N: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;. That was entirely inappropriate, and is the type of speculation that broad RfCs invite. There have been RfCs since then that have contradicted this result. The firm guideline of the community is that all SNGs are equal to the GNG. Any individual SNG may subjugate itself to the GNG if it wants, but they start out on equal footing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
We're talking about different matters: I was referring to your statement that closers can close an AfD discussion in the sports area however they want. Sure, they can, but only by ignoring the established consensus. I agree that the close of the discussion should not have claimed that no subject-specific notability guideline can override the general notability guideline. Not because of the statement at Wikipedia:Notability, but because the establishing consensus for any guideline can choose for itself what relationship it should have with the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The relationship between the GNG and SNG and notability needs to be fixed, that's what this thought analysis is all about. It absolutely should be "GNG or SNG", but that is based on the assumption that all SNG are merit-based criteria that are likely to prove the topic to be covered in depth with enough time, making them notable. Unfortunately the conflation of the GNG being equivalent to "notability" makes people think that the SNGs can't override the GNG, when in actuality they mean the SNGs cannot override notability (in that they can't define criteria based solely on importance without thought towards sourcing). Hence my suggestion that we need to separate the concept of notability from the GNG.
As to RFCs, there is no problem with a Wikiproject or otherwise small group of editors working to develop a new SNG with their domain knowledge expertise. But we can't have walled gardens, so the global RFC is needed to evaluate that SNG, or at least make sure it was developed based on the principle of "likely to be notable". That may very well raise questions that the crafters did not think about, or make sure there's proper alignment with related SNGs and guidelines. They have to checked though for community consensus. When you don't do that, you create the MMA situation all over again. --Masem (t) 22:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed on that. I obviously want to move away from the concept as we know it now entirely and focus on importance plus verifiability, but until we can do that, I think we need to make it as clear as possible that the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree with Unscintillating here. Huggums537 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that I support the split of GNG from N.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: While I don't oppose this particular change since it has little impact right now, it should be noted again that "presumed" is the word used across most other guideline pages AND it even goes so far as to actually define the Wikipedia meaning of "presumed" in the final paragraph of WP:GNG. To replace any more "presumed" with "likely" would require the removal of the word across multiple pages and the removal of the Wikipedia definition from the current version. Not exactly a change worthy of pursuing... Huggums537 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) Separating newcomers from ordinary editors; Newcomers in Draftspace, pre-submission, receive no assistance;
(2) Cursory, templated, nonhuman correspondence post-submission
(3) Establishing a pedagogical framework by implying to newcomers that there exist Wikipedia experts that the newcomers have to satisfy
(4) Inability to create incoming links from mainspace, or use of fair-use images.
(5) Departure of the newcomer following the unwelcoming atmosphere of AfC.
But my real point was that using DraftSpace to dodge difficult notability questions is a de facto permanent dodge that will see the page pseudo-deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
(1) Newcomers also just so happen to be ordinary editors themselves who actually do have some access to assistance.
(2) If drafts go through a review process just the same, then that would require some "human correspondence".
(3) The article creation process itself already establishes "a pedagogical framework" to some degree so this point is kinda moot.
(4) The inability to create links or use images is not so much a "cost" as it is an ordinary technical bug that probably has a workaround. It sounds more like an annoying nuisance than it does a "cost".
(5) Departure of the newcomer is a result of their experience at AfC. This is the "cost" of whoever is providing the experience at AfC, not the "cost" of newcomers using draftspace.
Drafts get looked at (reviewed) and "permanently" deleted all the time. So, it's inaccurate to say, "...draftified will never be looked at again." or "...that will see the page pseudo-deleted." Huggums537 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Huggums537, I am not a fan of meta:Immediatism, I think it is a barrier to newcomers. It implies that existing editors know the standards, it discourages newcomers from making a mess, and it also discourages other newcomers from doing some fixing. DraftSpace, like the AfC WikiProject subpages, like the Article Incubator, I say are and always have been of net negative value. That means that one could say DraftSpace is worthless. That is not to say that everything in it is worthless. If not carefully stated, yes, this can easily be misstated.
The costs of the AfC system are an interesting topic (probably better for WT:AfC). To your comments:
(1) Newcomers do have easy access to help, but they will find help easier and better in mainspace than in draftspace, therefore, there is a cost to them if they find themselves in drafspace.
(2) Go have a look at some rejected reviews, and come back and tell me how human you think it is. No use of a talk page. No addressing the author by name. A huge amount of templated message. What message there is is inside a WP:template, and these do not invite responses or encourage conversation, and definitely not a third party comment.
(3) Not sure what you mean. Compare with editing in mainspace, even administrators behave like just an ordinary editor. When you have the technical ability to write an article, you just do it, the NPPatrolling happens in the background.
(4) These are not bugs, but clear decisions of the community. WP:CNR, linking from mainspace to draftspace is not allowed. Fair use policy, fair use images are only allowed in mainspace. These two things prevent a draft from being a proper article. No incoming links means mainspace readers and editors will not be led to the new draft article. No fair use images means the draft may not be able to look like an equivalent mainspace article.
(5) Somewhere, there are stats on editor retention of newcomers to draftspace compared to newcomers to mainspace, and they are not good. The loss of newcomers is a cost to Wikipedia.
Submitted drafts get reviewed after a long delay. AfC would like more help, but given the density of good stuff, it is not fun. Drafts get deleted, mostly through WP:CSD#G13. There is barely a single glance before most get deleted. My friend, User:Legacypac, does a lot of good work here, I think he is basically the only Wikipedian reviewing old unsubmitted drafts, and finding the occasional rough gem. There was a backlog of tens of thousands. The delay is untimely compared to the hangaround time of a draftspace newcomer, it may as well be forever from that perspective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Those are some very reasonable points. I stand corrected on point #4 as I obviously misunderstood the issue as being of a technical nature when it actually is not. However, my point stays a valid one even in light of my error since there is still a "workaround" by the fact that if those limitations were put in place by the community, then it's possible for the community to change that. Thus, my point that it can be seen more as an annoying nuisance than a "cost" still remains sensible regardless of my mistake. Huggums537 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In case we have lost my point after following these tangents, my point is that sending articles of difficult-to-assess notability to draftspace is not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think your point still gets through pretty well. I just wanted to make sure that my one particular (rather insignificant) point was not lost just because you were able to demonstrate my error in misunderstanding the issue. Huggums537 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty happy with all of your points and posts. The rest of us here are usually in broad agreement on mostly everything, so we argue fine points. It's been going on fora very long time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Draft space or AfC are good ideas. AfC is just too slow. It is a barrier to good topics going forward to mainspace where many editors can participate in building out a good topic. AfC does keep useless topics out of maknspace, but I'd rather see these useless pages deleted quickly than see the creators encouraged to "fix" the unfixable (no N for example). The allowances and leeway given to Draft space allow useless material to hang around for months and years burning human resources managing it that would be better used in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
AfC may be slow, but it's essential for keeping promotional material out of mainspace.--unless you can propose some other way of doing that, some better place for COI editors to place their material. It's considerably better than it used to be--the least qualified editors have been removed, the erratic ones are gradually getting instructed, and most items are reviewed fairly quickly. The long delays are for only a part of the material, the drafts that nobody wants to deal with. I and a few other editors check preferentially the most recent few days, trying to accept the obviously acceptable. What we need is better ways of removing the repeatedly resubmitted junk and promotional material, and the simplest way without major revisions to the present system is greater use of G11 and MfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Legacypac here. It's funny, I used to consider Legacypac reckless in his rapid clearing for old drafts (term "draft" used loosely), but now he appears the exemplar in their processing. He is doing a good job in rescuing a horrible situation, but it doesn't justify the mistake of Draftspace/AfC/Article incubator. The mistake is in encouraging the newcomers to focus on their unlikely topics instead of engaging in mainspace content work and becoming part of the community of editors.
DGG, throwing the unsuspecting good faith newcomers in with COI-editors and spammers in the detention processes of AfC, separating them from the real parts of the project, only catches the witless abusers and damages the recruitment of new editors. Yes, it used to be worse, with worse reviewing, but reviewing still is not good. A proposal for a better way is to extend WP:ACTRIAL to all namespaces, to actively discourage newcomers from attempting new pages in their first 4 days. Wikipedia does not need new orphan pages from newcomers, and preventing this will not discourage, but encourage, new mainspace content from these newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
But about the basic question: requiring both GMG and the special guidelines is a way of making the situation worse. For something clearly encyclopedia - worthy, one good source to establish WP:V for both existence and importance is enough. The true minimum requirement is WP:V. Everything beyond that should have a specific guideline. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

More further insights

I'm 99% certain that we can improve how WP:N is seen by making it very clear that the GNG is not the standard for notability, only a minimum amount of sourcing that presumes that a topic is notable. To that end, I think the following logical narrative needs to be established at WP:N

The Measure

The Process

I know most of these points is what WP:N already says in different ways, but in the scheme I'm thinking of, we want to pull the GNG as far away from WP:N to avoid the conflation that "GNG = WP:N" that causes many problems. I'm also addressing a few points made above related to more-strict SNGs, and to draft space. This exercise here is mainly to lay out points and try to figure out how to write WP:N (and potentially a second guideline on the "Process" ) to avoid the confusion from past discussions. --Masem (t) 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, Masem. You said a mouthful. I don't even know where to begin on all the areas I agree/disagree with, or how I even feel about yet another guideline about sourcing and notability. Perhaps small (but very strategic) changes to the existing structure could be just as effective if leveraged enough to be impactful while still being practical. Huggums537 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Skipping a lot of detail and opinion, the deleted article satisfied core content policies on an attractive/popular topic, but was deleted for lacking prose-based evidence in reliable sources.
I've cited this example on several occasions on policy pages, without attracting an AfD because it lacks prose-based evidence in reliable sources.
Unscintillating (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Unscintillating, I have noticed you dropping Barber Island into conversations recently and I'm embarrassed to tell you that I don't get it. What point do you think the Barber Island article proves, exactly? From where I sit, a BLP about an actress and an article about an island seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison. Geographic features are (unlike bios and especially unlike BLPs) presumed to be notable. So can you break that one down for me? A Traintalk 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The other post regarding Barber Island is off-topic here, and I've posted there.  Here, the issue had been prose-based evidence, which maps are not, and Barber Island is an article sourced with maps.  It was posted before Masem stated that non-prose evidence counted, but he has yet to elaborate with examples, so I'm not sure where this stands.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
And as for WP:NGEO, it doesn't say what you think it says.  It might be an example of where Masem's logic is leading, though, since it first requires WP:GNG, and then disallows maps for notability but not for WP:V.  And then for islands, lakes, and mountains states, "the number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article."  We know from WP:NNC and WP:NEXIST that that requirement holds no standing currently.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to attempt to regurgitate your argument back to you. I really am trying to understand where you are coming from on this.
You're saying that NGEO starts with a presumption of notability for geographic features, but later the guideline stipulates that articles about natural features (such as Barber Island) should have enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. You contend that because Barber Island is sourced to maps (as opposed to prose sources), a sourced encyclopedic article can't be written, and the article should be deleted the same way that Kyoko Ayana was. Have I got it right? A Traintalk 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
A common reason we regularly keep geographic features is that we presume there are local sources that will talk about those features, at minimum (in addition to being recognized by government maps). To show those local sources do no exist (per AFD nom) requires effort. If that effort isn't done, but otherwise the SNG is met, we by default keep the article, barring other potenital issues. --Masem (t) 22:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, I didn't state an opinion about a presumed notability of geographic features.  You had opined, "Geographic features are...presumed to be notable", in which the Wikilink cites WP:NGEO.  I replied to that, "WP:NGEO...doesn't say what you think it says."  Then I continued by discussing what WP:NGEO does say.  The lede of WP:NGEO states, "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable."  That gets me as far as the first comma in your question.  Although I could say more, any relevance of continuing this part of the discussion needs to be tied back to Masem's proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The big picture of my position is that notability doesn't define article content, and that our failure to effect our core content policies (to define article content) isn't addressed by altering notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Unscintillating, I was trying in good faith to try and unpack your argument in order to understand if, and you're just slapping me away. Below, you've laid down an arbitrary rhetorical line beyond which you refuse to engage with Masem any further.
Talk pages exist so that people can make arguments and convince other editors to their side, in order to form the consensus that the project operates on. You are rejecting opportunities to convince people that your view is correct in favor of gnomic dismissals and high-fiving yourself. Your idiosyncratic style of argument has never (that I have seen) convinced anyone of anything. That's why some experienced editors have given up trying to engage with you, and I'm starting to get why.
I am genuinely trying to understand your argument, because I would like to help you make it, even if I don't agree with it. So please, read my previous post and tell me where it does or does not reflect your argument. Or if you want to keep tilting at windmills alone and getting dunked on in every policy discussion you get into, I guess that's fine, too. A Traintalk 11:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No, you and I recently reached agreement that "Bloomberg endeavour[s] to ensure that the listing in their database are correct", which is a wise thing for a fiduciary to say, diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Um, no. You cherry-picked that phrase out of something I wrote to illustrate an irrelevant point whilst completely ignoring the thrust of my argument. I cannot imagine a more perfect illustration of what makes you so frustrating to interact with and with that, I think, I'm giving up on you. A Traintalk 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to pick one specific to confirm we are moving forward here.  You had opined, "Geographic features are...presumed to be notable", in which the Wikilink cites WP:NGEO.  I replied to that, "WP:NGEO...doesn't say what you think it says."  The lede of WP:NGEO states, "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable."  Do you agree that the Wikilink conflicts with the stated quote?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Unscintillating:--The interpretation of a policy/guideline is often-determined by it's current practice rather than it's wording.The community has historically accepted, litigating through numerous AFDs, that features meeting NGEO are not just presumed to be notable but is by-default notable.I know that it feels like a violation of the policy/guideline but that's how we are doing the things and will (probably) do the things.DGG may be able to provide some interesting views over the point.Winged BladesGodric 14:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that the practice of a low notability bar (or a path outside of notability via the word "gazetteer") for geographic features predates WP:NGEO.  How does this comment relate to Masem's proposal?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The Kyoko Ayana example appears to follow how N is supposed to work. There were no sources to show notability. There were sources in the article at one point but a 10k removal removed those, and commentators at the AFD pointed out that the removed sources failed RS, thus did not contribute to notability. And they argued there was no other apparent sign of RSes out there. Thus deletion was sourced-based, not prose-based.
And for Barber Island, I've said it above: because we have determined we are a gazetteer, any government-recognized geographic feature has an automatic article; this is WP's only automatic inclusion guideline. It falls outside notability. --Masem (t) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a lot of ideas in one post.  But to your first paragraph, deletion was not based on core-content policies, and unless and until you agree that this was the case, I won't be able to advance the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
My reading of that AFD shows the delete !voters pointing out that what sources there were in and had presently been in the article were not RSes, meaning WP:V was not met, a core content policy. --Masem (t) 18:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not really just GNG--I think the entire concept of notability is an error, as is the very concept of keeping or deleting separate articles. We should rather say that the importance of the subject affects the degree to which we cover it--it's a continuum, not a yes/no argument. (the reason we're stuck with it is that people want separate articles because of Google--they give prominence only to separate articles. It's almost reached the point where it's safe to assume anyone arguing persistently to keep an article in some areas does so because of a strong coi.).
The other problem word in our standards is "presume" If it means what it does in English, it means that if something is presumed notable, it is notable unless actually proven otherwise--which for the GNG means an exhaustive search of all possible sources comes out negative, which in most cases is an impossible criterion--one can only prove a negative within a finite set.of sources.
The question is better stated as , What do we want to include in different areas, and once we decide it, how can we make guidelines that can decide on a practical basis with minimum argument. We will not agree completely on what we want, but in most areas we will reach a tolerable consensus if people compromise. Consensus does not mean everyone has to agree, but just that everyone has to agree to live with it.
There's a sense in which my opposition to the use of the GNG is against my interests--I would be much more able to make the contents of WP fit my own preference if we used it, because I've learned to have considerable skill at the sort of artificial arguments that can be made on that basis. Additionally, I rather enjoy the contest at AfD against opponents of equal skill. But those are rules for a debating club, not for doing something practical like making an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There are two things here that I have said before that are important. First is key to understanding that we need to distinguish the GNG from equating to notability. Finding 2 or 3 sources may be the right argument to keep an article in development, but if I can prove that those are only the 2-3 sources that readily exist about that topic, then we shouldn't have that standalone for the article. The GNG establishes a source-driven presumption of notability so that we know we have an article that at the bare minimum meets V, NOR, and NPOV, but doesn't establish what we expect a good article at the end of day should be.
That brings up the second point is that what we expect notability to look like for a topic will vary by topic area; different topic areas are going to have different type of sourcing, expected structure, etc. EG I would use routine newspaper reporting to document a current conflict in a country, but I wouldn't use the as signs of notability for a medical procedure. What notability can be defined as will vary by topic, but we do set a topic-neutral minimum bar with allowing topics that met the GNG to have a working standalone. Keeping in mind that I'm stressing that the GNG must be considered not equivalent to notability, and this readily works, and follows current practice (it only spells it out better to avoid all conflicts we have been having). --Masem (t) 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Masem, I applaud your analysis and efforts. But GNG's and SNG's are a fuzzy Gordian knot that sort of works knitted to implement a non-existent definition/ objective, which is "what is this notability thing that we require?." Trying to clean them up without creating the "guiding light" definition is IMHO an impossible task.North8000 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of steps involved, I don't think it wise to change it all at once. The key step that seems like there is agreement is that we recognize that the GNG should not be treated as equivalent to notability. Making that distinction clear (I don't know how yet) can go a long way to resolving some of the above points without impacting practice. It's only a start, and all the other points I make are things that can come later. --Masem (t) 17:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking this question to explore this, not to disagree. So, there is a notability requirement for a topic having its own article in Wikipedia. Where is this even vaguely defined? You just said that it is not in GNG or SNG's. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It's vaguely defined right in the WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included [have it's own article]. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—...". I think the wording in brackets should replace the old wording to avoid confusion and I'll be opening another section about this minor change soon. Huggums537 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, so then GNG is at least to some extent the authority on it. Although, even that in essence says sourcing (merely) creates a presumption of notability but does not define notability, and then says that the ensuing (AFD) discussion determines notability. And what rulebook does that discussion use as a framework?. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The process around notability is not spelled out well, that's where there's a lack of a single place where all this is discussed. Bits are here, bits at BEFORE, bits at AFD, but these needs to be cohesive. --Masem (t) 21:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There's a couple points to be clear: there is no requirement for a topic to be notable to have an article, as we discount things like lists, Summary-style split articles, etc. There are a small but significant number of topics on WP that most agree never have to meet notability. Even excluding those, notability remains a guideline , meaning there are common sense exceptions. It should never be considered a policy.
That said, for most topics, at the infinite deadline, we want a article on a topic to clearly show that it is notable (covered in depth by many sources, and, in how I see it, comparable in terms of article content to other topics in the same field that are deemed already notable by editors). The more sources you give for a topic, the more likely that no one will dispute why the topic should be part of WP. If we can't get an article to that point, and it will remain weak in sources or otherwise stubby, we should seek some other action like merge or deletion. The problem is to show that an topic/article can or can't get to notability levels like this is a considerable time investment by editors to either find sources or prove those sources reasonably don't exist. Because WP is all about collaboration, we don't want to require articles to show this notability at creation, but we do want newly created articles to at least demonstrate they have the likelihood to get there. This is where we would like editors to show how their topic meets the sourcing-based GNG or the merit-based SNGs at article creation (with the necessary minimum sources to show that). GNG and SNGs give the presumption that a topic is notable to give the time and capability for editors to develop articles without fear of being rushed to deletion.
The problem right now is the distinction of what notability is and what the GNG is, in terms of current practice, is not well-differentiated. The idea of presumed notability and the fact that it is attached to the GNG (which has traditionally been "2 or 3 sources") implies there's a higher level of notability that the GNG does necessarily met, but that is not well spelled out in this guideline. --Masem (t) 20:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well said. Also, your focus here on SNG's has been as a role in new articles. Another role is that in a fuzzy way they have a bit of influence to help calibrate GNG. IMO two things would help. One is a 1-2 sentence statement of what the guideline is trying to implement. In essence notable enough for an enclyclopedia of en Wikipedia's approx size. Second, slowly improve GNG and improve it's calibration. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the GNG can be improved. It was designed when we were in much different shape than we are today, and honestly it has outlived it's usefulness: a 6 million article encyclopedia that has articles on most of the major topics can afford to shift to a subject-specific importance-based inclusion system. I don't expect to get rid of the GNG tomorrow, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that wasn't my longterm goal. Notability is a merger of three things: verifiability, importance, and scope. The GNG tells us if something meets the verifiability, it (very poorly) attempts to approximate importance, and tells us nothing about scope (that is why NOT is an equal requirement to the GNG and SNGs).

Regardless of disagreements on this, I do think we can all agree that the way this guideline is currently interpreted is out of scope with what the historical consensus on this page and other policy discussions has been. I would suggest a few sentences like:

Our guideline on encyclopedic notability attempts to assess whether something is verifiable, important, and within the scope of Wikipedia. While the general notability guideline and subject specific guidelines are useful at approximating notability, common sense should be used, and the likelihood of notability that each provides is not a guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia.

I hope this has been somewhat helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that the idea of putting more weight on SNG in certain fields is fine, but I also feel that there's a large number of topics that don't and/or shouldn't need anything more than the GNG as the point to have a standalone article. For example, I'll speak for the Video Games project that the bulk of our articles are quite happy with the GNG, as with an industry producing 1000s of titles a year, this keeps out the noise quite well to only those games covered in our sources, and gives us the ability to remove an article if that game ends up going nowhere (cancelled, no critical coverage, etc.). But I can understand the difference for academics, corporations, and others. I'll say again that if AFD practice shows topics in some areas being kept and there's no SNG yet for it, then maybe that's a reasonable step for domain-knowledge experts to step in and suggest a new SNG to present for global consensus. It might not pass (NSCHOOLS) but that's a perfect way that notability should follow practice.
But yes, the minimum step I think we need to do is make sure we have a bright, defining line between what notability is, and what purpose the GNG serves towards that. Anything else takes a bit more thought, but this separations seems to have some agreement. --Masem (t) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Masem, what about something such as

A subject is said to be notable if it demonstrates importance, can be verified, and is within the scope of Wikipedia. The general notability guideline and the subject notability guidelines attempt to approximate importance and verifiability, using independent sources, but not scope. The policy What Wikipedia is not defines what is outside the scope of Wikipedia. An article may be excluded even if it passes the general or subject guidelines, and may be included even if it appears to fail them.

I'm trying to pull together consensus wording that can be added to this page that is in line with the thinking that we've been having. I distilling it down to a few sentences and updating the guideline is important for any further efforts in notability reform, and I think there is a consensus that some sort of notability reform is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"demonstrates importance" is the tricky line, I think we'd need to add something like "as judged by independent sources", as to make it clear that for notability it should be reflecting sources, not personal opinion. There are things we as editors judge important enough to include regardless of sourcing, but those would fall outside of what notability would cover. --Masem (t) 01:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What about updating the second sentence to include to approximate importance and verifiability, using reliable sourcing, but not scope. Importance is approximated by sources, but is not determined by them. I also prefer reliable to independent here: for some fields where notability is largely merit based rather than coverage based (politicians and academics stick out), non-independent RS will be what gets them over the "keep" threshold. The GNG and other guidelines can set their criteria for relative independence of sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think "independent" still works even for those areas, recognizing that, for example, the Science Citation Index is an independent work compared to any academic listed in it, but still providing the merit-based idea for academics. This also partially hits on the issue of local sources verses regional/national/global. The New York Times is clearly reliable and independent for things on a global scale, but they also have metro stories which would not to be independent for local businesses like restaurant reviews. Now the nitty gritty of all that can be filtered to the SNGs or the like, but "independent" covers that broadly. "Reliable" is just as important too but that is more "can be verified by reliable sources" which keeps that idea with WP:V, where RS is the core principle there. (Basically, I know NCORP is very much fearing COI issues so want to cut those off at the pass). --Masem (t) 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll bite. It's not something I care enough about to quibble over, and I see your point. I think it could be better described at the guideline level, but I think it is also reasonable to include. I've updated it above in red. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a problem with "Something may be excluded even if it passes the general or subject guidelines, and may be included even if it appears to fail them." since it could be misinterpreted to be guidance for content within articles. "Something" is far too vague. I think "An article may be excluded even if it passes the general or subject guidelines, and may be included even if it appears to fail them." would be better. Huggums537 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Something that came to be later is that there is a degree of importance that we make as editors, but that is part of the implicit nature of how the SNGs are crafted. We do assign importance that way in that those merit-based criteria are things that are important in that field as we , WP editors, know. The importance set by sources is best when that's covering topics that do not have an associated SNG. So we're not fully setting importance from sources here, so there might be a way to reword that more. --Masem (t) 03:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that was my concern with your original suggestion, and preferred reliable sources. The merit-based criteria still require RS to indicate importance, but the importance doesn't come from being noticed in independent sources, but from the acts themselves. Perhaps changing it to as demonstrated by reliable sourcing: that way it shows that the sources demonstrate the importance, but are not always the source of it. The individual guidelines (including the GNG) can pick up the rest of the slack from there in explaining how they handle it. TonyBallioni (ta:::lk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Without commenting on the substance of the proposed changes, the wording ought to be clarified a bit. Importance isn't demonstrated by the subject; editors can demonstrate importance through an evaluation of the subject by some criteria, typically its effect on related domains. Generally speaking, verifying the subject isn't at issue (although I suppose it is when screening out hoaxes); it's the subject's characteristics that need verification. The guidelines provide approximate measures of importance and verifiability. isaacl (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Isaacl: I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see any changes that should be made based on your statements. The above phrasing when read naturally indicates all of what you said, and further specificity would likely be a net negative. I particularly am opposed to changing the language around demonstrates: the subject demonstrates itself to be important, not editors. If you have other specific changes, I'd be interested in hearing them, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Importance is not inherent; it is based on a value judgment. "Home run", for example, doesn't demonstrate its own importance. Saying the GNG, for example, approximates importance isn't quite correct as this means the GNG itself approaches importance, rather than saying meeting the GNG provides an approximate demonstration of importance for the subject in question. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you're counting angels on the head of a pin here. The language around demonstrates is about the subject, not the guidelines, and a subject can demonstrate qualitative value judgement (ex. my grandmother demonstrates the quality of kindness). I also think you are missing the point of the suggested text: the GNG doesn't demonstrate importance, it approximates it. A subject is notable if it demonstrates that it is important, and the GNG is one way of helping to judge that, but it is not sufficient to prove it. I'm open to different wording, but I think the way you seem to be suggesting would defeat the point of having an additional passage, which is to make an abstract concept easier to understand. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that a lot of this discussion has been about precision of language, I do feel it is important to make these distinctions. Yes, subjects can demonstrate particular qualities, but importance is a quality that only makes sense based on some standards, and the whole point of your suggesting a move to subject-matter specific standards is to recognize this. Again, when you write that GNG approximates importance, it implies the opposite of what you said regarding GNG not being importance in itself but being a way to judge importance. I suggest something like the following:

A subject merits an article if it is important, can be verified, and is within the scope of Wikipedia. The general notability guideline and subject-specific notability guidelines provide an approximate indication of importance and verifiability using independent sources. The policy What Wikipedia is not defines what is outside the scope of Wikipedia.

isaacl (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose this as a step backwards that would make the GNG even more prominent than it already is, and would be implying the exact opposite of the above. I also think that you are drawing distinctions where drawing them isn't helpful, since the purpose is to explain a difficult concept to people in terms they will understand. A subject is notable if it demonstrates those qualities, and the GNG and SNGs approximate two of them. Your wording seems to imply a guarantee of inclusion, which is the exact opposite of what we want. Again, I think what you are suggesting would make the guideline harder to understand. We are not trying to define what get's an article, that will come much later down the road, but to explain that notability is not equal to either the GNG or the SNGs, but a broader concept that the guidelines help us judge. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I omitted the last sentence from your wording only because I wasn't making any proposal to reword it; otherwise everything I wrote is a direct analog of your text. Thus, I do not believe this approach gives the general notability guideline any more prominence than your proposal does, and I did not intend it to define what gets an article and what does not to any degree greater than your proposal. "Notability" in the conventional sense does not include scope, and so I don't believe English Wikipedia should include scope under the concept of notability. My suggestion explicitly does not equate notability to the GNG or SNGs, but uses your concept that they provide an approximate way to judge importance. I think it is clearer to be more direct: the goal is to have articles for important topics that have adequate sources to verify the contents of the articles. So I prefer to say that an article is notable if it is important and can be verified, rather than saying it is notable if it can be demonstrated to be important and verified. Then as in your proposal, two examples of guidelines that help judge importance and verifiability are listed. The sentence on scope is the same as in your proposal. Then lastly there could be something like The general notability guideline and the subject-specific notability guidelines are not the only ways to evaluate importance and verifiability. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Scope is in WP:N currently: it is the second point of a two-prong test: passing a guideline, and not being excluded by NOT. My proposal defines what notability is, whereas your wording defines what merits an article, and doesn't include any qualifiers on that point. I'm generally opposed to the word merits, as I've discussed in the past, but it certainly shouldn't be included without a qualifier. I also think it is better to define the concept of notability, and not go further, since the guideline already explains that passing the two-pronged test makes something likely to merit an article: no need to repeat. Trying to merge our two wordings, what about:

A subject is said to be notable if it is sufficiently important, can be verified, and is within the scope of Wikipedia. The general notability guideline and subject-specific notability guidelines provide an approximate indication of importance and verifiability using independent sources, but do not address scope. The policy What Wikipedia is not defines what is outside the scope of Wikipedia. An article may be excluded even if it passes the general or subject guidelines, and may be included even if it appears to fail them.

Let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually the page says that a subject is presumed to merit an article if the two conditions are met. I disagree with making scope part of the concept of notability, as this conflates two independent concepts. What about this:

A subject is notable if it is sufficiently important and can be verified. The general notability guideline and subject-specific notability guidelines provide an approximate indication of importance and verifiability using independent sources. These guidelines are not the only way to evaluate these characteristics, and so a subject may be deemed notable through other means. The policy What Wikipedia is not defines what articles are outside the scope of Wikipedia, even if the associated subject is notable.

isaacl (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Isaacl, I think scope is inherently part of notability, and is included in the current guideline: WP:NOT defines what is our scope (by nullification), and is included as a part of notability. There is confusion as to whether our scope is anything that passes the GNG, which it is not. This is why I'd prefer scope be included with importance and verifiability (as it already is in the guideline). I think the text also needs to make clear that passing one of the guidelines is not a guarantee of notability, which you removed.
    I'd accept as a compromise on the scope point adding at the end, and any article must not be excluded by that policy in addition to being notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • isaacl, fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • With the goal of helping people understand abstract concepts, I think combining scope under notability just leads to confusion. In the real world, notability tests do not include scope, and something can be notable and yet out of scope for a particular publication. As you said, the need to meet both conditions is already described in the numbered list, so does it need to be covered again with your proposed clause? (Plus it is essentially re-describing what "out of scope" means.) How about:

      A subject is notable if it is sufficiently important and can be verified. The general notability guideline and subject-specific notability guidelines provide an approximate indication of importance and verifiability using independent sources. As these guidelines are not the only way to evaluate these characteristics, a subject can be judged to be notable or lack notability based on other criteria, whether or not these guidelines are met. The policy What Wikipedia is not defines what articles are outside the scope of Wikipedia, even if the associated subject is notable.

      • I'm having a bit of concern of how the second sentence comes off (about GNG/SNG) as it reads to me, in the eyes of a new editor, that the GNG and SNG are sufficient for notability, and one doesn't have to show any more work at that point, which is not what we want. I'm not sure what the right language to add to keep this terse. Maybe a question to ask is where are you proposing to put this statement, to see the context for it. --Masem (t) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Just another spanner into the works: one of the goals by issuing a bright line between what notability is and that the GNG is not equivalent to that, is that we can actually use the proper English definition of notability as the guiding principle: topics that are notable for WP are those that have been noted by sources. We evaluate notability by using importance, verifyability, etc... (Tony's def) Now, at this point, that might be too much of a change without the other facets of discussion, but something to keep in mind. --Masem (t) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think saying that Wikipedia seeks to have articles on notable topics, where notability is based on the importance of the topic in its domain, lines up with the English definition of notability (from the American Heritage dictionary, "the state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice"). Evaluating notability is, as you said before, a continuum; the current consensus supports using the GNG and SNGs as a first cut for determining the likelihood of notability. Accordingly the proposed statement refers to these guidelines, but also says they aren't definitive. isaacl (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"Importance" is rather vague and is problematic, as it has different meanings to different people. To hierarchical thinkers, it means one thing to circular thinkers, it means quite another. Things that might be important at one time, are unimportant in others. If the point is to clarify the guidelines it would make more sense to say something along the lines of "A subject is notable if it achieved a sufficient impact within its historical context and can be verified". SusunW (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's close too, I just would want to be clear that we include topics that are notable (English def), but to avoid a fully subjective assessment of notability, we seek to show a topic is notable as demonstrated with some objectivity through either coverage from independent sources or pre-determined domain-specific merits. I don't know if we need this right now, but I would keep it in mind. Why WP:N is named "notability" when its practical definition has always significantly varied fro the English meaning has been a thorn in our side, but we've got a way to get past that with this approach. --Masem (t) 16:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I proposed removing importance, it is subjective and fails to take into account things which may have impact on an era, but are clearly not relevant on a hierarchical measure—discarded theories that were at one time significant, personalities, i.e. Paris Hilton, Lawn Chair Larry, etc., former countries, ad infinitum. Stating instead that it impacted an era is not placing a hierarchical measure or recentism upon the evaluation process, allowing for a much more objective analysis. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
In my view, importance is typically determined by criteria evaluating the effect of a topic on its related domains. Thus impact on an era would fall under this. isaacl (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
SusunW, I consider impact in an era as falling under importance, like isaacl. I think importance is better though because it is broader: things such as roads, unincorporated places, every train station in the UK, random animals discovered and documented in one academic paper, etc. don't meet the GNG as it is written, but consensus has deemed them important enough for an article if they can be verified. They also likely wouldn't fit under the impact on an era wording. If you could think of a way to phrase this, I'd be very happy to hear it (or to convince me on the impact of an era wording: I'm definitely open to it as it is a step in the right direction, IMO). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I did not get a ping...there is no "a" in my name. I am not a black and white thinker, nor a hierarchical one. Importance requires some sort of subjective criteria whereas impact does not. Unincorporated places, train stations, random animals, from your example, could well have impact, but be totally unimportant. For the first two, they were founded for some reason and impacted the inhabitants around them, who utilize them, and may well have changed the demographics of a place. For the second, things like the polar-griz definitely impacted our knowledge of species, so while in and of itself is a minor hybrid and certainly not an important species, it definitely changed our understanding of biology. None of your examples indicates importance, but they all fit in an impact evaluation. SusunW (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Impact also requires criteria that are based on a value system, and the value system is subjective. I see impact as the same as having an effect on related domains, just using a word with slightly different connotations. If a topic affecting our understanding of biology, for example, then it has made a clear and noticeable effect, and so is important to biology; I can't see how it would be considered unimportant. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that there is a judgment either way on values. But, "importance" in and of itself is a loaded word, easily misconstrued to discount things that are not in agreement with one's own view. I am not married to "impact", but it has a broader applicability to my mind. Whether it impacted something does not limit the topic to something that is in and of itself significant. Semantics do matter when one is trying to define concepts. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This is why I think if we talk importance in relationship to notability, then we have to identify by what metrics we are using to avoid the outright subjective assessment. Hence why importance relating to notability is what can be demonstrated through coverage of independent sources, or through reasonably-selected figures of merit that can be verified. But one could argue that "impact" is yet a different measurement than importance , and should be included as well.
And maybe "importance" and "impact" are not the complete extent of what "notability" covers either. Take an average , non-Oscar winning film but one that had wide release. It doesn't break any cultural ground, it's not a major success nor failure, it doesn't change anyone's opinions of the actors or directors involved; it just cost millions to make, brought millions in gross, and has the usual extensive reviews and production information. That's notable by both english and WP's definition, but it's not showing "importance" or "impact". It's just been "noted" through thorough discussion of its production and its critical reviews. We can fit it into WP because it has verifyability, and coverage from independent sources. I wouldn't use "interesting" as the word alongside "importance" or "impact" (that's a worse word than "importance"), but its related to how much interest the sources show towards a topic as yet another facet of notability. --Masem (t) 20:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly Masem. At Women in Red we typically utilize the theory that an article is typically notable if one can define the scope (who, what) in context (where, when) to weigh its significance (how, why) with sufficient RS to write a comprehensive article without doing original research. SusunW (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
A film that gained a significant viewership does have an effect on the film-making domain for its year of release, and possibly its year(s) of production, and so I do believe it fits the standard of importance. Important does not mean it was a landmark, innovative, or creatively distinct. Important topics are just things that should be covered when discussing related domains, such as cinema in year X, because of the effect they've had. A film that hardly anyone watched won't be important by viewership standards, and so would have to meet a different standard of importance to have an article, such as critical acclaim. isaacl (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Then that may mean, reasonably, that "importance" or "impact" should be "within their field", which stresses a point Tony's making about domain-expertise playing a role here. Whether that is by appropriate selection of domain sources, or by merit-based criteria, either is fine. We just do need to make sure that no domain -expert area is given too much leeway to make too many broad assumptions of what they believe is notable - the MMA problem from years back. --Masem (t) 21:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's the same point I've been making about domain experts, but sure. And yes, "effect on related domains" includes "within their field", just generalized a bit. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course not, notability is a convention depending on context: in this case that context is Wikipedia. Honorary members may be "notable" for an organisation (which uses its own criteria to bestow such qualification on certain persons), so why shouldn't Wikipedia use its own criteria regarding what it considers "notable" for its own purposes? It should, after all, not be a judgement on how important a person, organisation, etc., is according to other criteria. Buying a V.I.P. ticket to an event would make you "notable" in Wikipedia, while it says so on your (verifiable) ticket, you're not only an important person: you're a Very Important Person. It would make impossible to refuse such person an entry to Wikipedia, while the person is "notable" while they are "verifiably important" (according to someone else's criteria).
I never got why using "notability" in a well-defined context would be in whatever sense problematic for Wikipedia. Everyone does it. Using "notability" in a general ill-defined (e.g. by making it dependent on the even vaguer "importance" concept) sense is much more problematic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Importance is approximated by either merit-based criteria, or looking at the sources in context, and judging whether they demonstrate it in their coverage. Notability as we use it on Wikipedia is a made up term, and it while DGG has said in the past that we have started to have religious faith in the GNG, I think some people take it to the level of a cult: there is nothing special about having one or two newspaper write-ups. I can do that for myself within the next three months if I wanted. That doesn't make me notable. That means I can pick up my cell phone and call a reporter. We need to move away from this concept that notability is king: it isn't. Consensus is. Notability is just shorthand for "what we have determined through consensus to be important enough to have an article on Wikipedia and is not outside of our scope." We can determine in any XfD that something is notable or not regardless of what the guidelines say. They are clear that they are not a guarantee of inclusion, and they are not a policy. The GNG allows us to approximate subject importance based on what has been noted when we have not determined a subject-specific criteria, but we can, and should, use common sense and throw it out the window when it gets in the way of improving Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Disagree with almost all of that, including what you say about DGG's approach. Oppose changes to the guidance based on such reasoning which would, evidently, make notability-related issues only more, not less, problematic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made it clear I want to get rid of the GNG, so does DGG. It's worthless, and I encourage people to ignore it in favour of using the SNGs as exclusionary guidelines all the time, because building up a consensus at AfDs is the only way we will ever be able to fix our massive problem of overincluding spam while chasing off topics that actually should be covered in an encyclopedia (AfC and the -help IRC channel do this all the time). My porposed changes above, however, are not aimed at that, but at clarifying this document, which no one seems to be able to understand. It's undertaken in good faith, and includes the GNG despite my distaste for it, because I recognize that consensus currently accepts it. At the same time, while I appreciate all the work Masem has done, I'm beginning to despair that nothing will come out of all of these conversations, because people are too focused on the particulars rather than willing to compromise on wording to clarify what the consensus on this document actually is. If we can't do that, we might as well mark it as historical and not even pay lipservice to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Re. "...this document, which no one seems to be able to understand..." – offence taken. Please speak for yourself. I'd be happy to try explain what you don't understand. The "likely" proposal discussed below added another layer of (unnecessary) complexity, and so was unsuccessful in clarifying anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing you or people on this page who are attempting to help move forward the discussion. The conversation was started when Masem pointed out that we need to better explain the concept of encyclopedic notability: it is currently ambiguous and difficult for people to understand, and critiquing the document as such is not an insult. Many people currently conflate it with the GNG. That has never been the consensus, and we need to find a way to explain it better.

Right now, we have a document that no one reads because they only link to one section of it. Changing the text to make it clear that notability is much more than passing that one section needs to happen. If it doesn't happen, then we are just going to continue to have meaningless fights in XfDs with one side advancing policy based arguments, and the other saying "But the GNG!" (and this goes in both directions, keep and delete).

That isn't good for the encyclopedia: at the same time, I think it might be impossible to actually change this document in anyway soon, even with just clarifying remarks, and efforts might be better spent in the other guidelines working on developing consensus' there as to what is notable and how they interact with the GNG. As much as I really do respect Masem's efforts, having read over all of these threads multiple times, I'm not sure that we are going to be able to get much done on this guideline. My wording above was an attempt to try to get a 2-3 sentence summary of what our understanding of notability was using terms people could understand: not to actually change anything. I'm not tied to those exact words, but if we can't develop a consensus for a 2-3 sentence summary of notability, we won't be able to make any larger reforms here (in the direction I would prefer, or in other directions). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I totally disagree that SNG are or ever will be more important than GNG. They fail to cover a broad enough definition of what is or is not notable, at this point cover minimal topics, and further fail to take into account media/publishing biases. While one might be able to qualify sports-based achievement (and I know many editors who think those guidelines are flawed), for example PROF has serious issues, in that it is geared toward hard sciences and fails to take into account demographic differences, citation variances, (law never cites someone else's work but rather case evidence; research shows men typically cite other men, while women cite both male and female authorities, name changes affect citation statistics, etc.), and the inherent biases that have typically omitted women and minorities from being included in the "accomplishment hierarchy". What is being touted here as moving toward a defined, rules-based inclusionary guideline is in fact one that excludes a vast number of notable people who have had impact in their place or origin or on a specific era. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I actually think one of the strongest selling points of SNGs is that they are less likely to exhibit systemic biases than the GNG is. That is one of the main reasons that we have them: they are a double edged sword that makes it easier to include things that are significant, but hard to pass the GNG, and easier to exclude things that pass the GNG because of various privileges and social hierarchies (ex. a young PhD student in Canada knowing how to market herself and call the reporter vs. a top researcher in Africa who doesn't do that.) I also think that the SNGs need a lot of tweaking to account for what you are talking about, but ultimately, what I think needs to happen is a move towards including more of the topics that you suggest, which I don't see the GNG as providing. Those are the areas where we are currently lacking coverage, and the GNG builds in a systemic bias against them. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. SNGs evaluate things in a hierarchical manner, placing value on things that are inherently "important" to the mainstream culture. They also buttonhole people into narrow categories, which exclude the experiences of all but the most notable people in any given endeavor. Many women/minority's experiences did not allow them to be singularly notable for a specific field, and yet, evaluating the totality of their role, clearly they had impact on their place and time. People and things are typically not one-dimensional and SNGs tend to place more significance on one facet than on the entirety of the topic. SusunW (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think SusunW brings up several valid points here. The proponents of doing away with the GNG have not taken into account that the community will overcompensate for this by a dramatic increase in SNG's to establish a foothold for their favorite topics. This will result in coverage of tons of topics in SNG's where there is currently a minimal amount as SusunW pointed out. Spammers will always find a way to spam and putting exclusionary restrictions on the community at large is not the answer since that "punishes" the good editors the same as the bad. That is a plan of action that when followed to it's logical conclusion actually hurts the community more than it helps it. I fully understand the reasoning behind the idea, but I just think it's a bad idea. The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were thought to be good ideas at the time as well, but I'll leave it to the readers to decide if they were a bad idea or not... Huggums537 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that a significant increase in SNG's statistically raises the odds that there will be more contradictions between the various topics related to policy, creating even more confusion about notability and policy in general. It is far better keep the amount of SNG's to a minimum by the KISS principle and why we have both WP:CREEP and WP:POVFORK guidance. The GNG helps us to accomplish this by providing a simple location of single coverage for virtually unlimited various topics. (With the possible exception of those that are currently limited to the SNG's). Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that the GNG can be made field specific simply by defining what the RSes are for that topic, which may be more specialized than a general topic. Back to Video Games, we maintain WP:VG/S to comply with WP:RS requirements of what sources in video games are appropriate (in addition to any reliable general news source), so that we don't need a specialized SNG, just the GNG with our source list. This doesn't work for all topics, but it is a possible route to avoid too many SNGs. --Masem (t) 19:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, see my post below regarding the problematic approach of having an ever-increasing number of rules. I think it's probably moot, though: my feeling is that the community is not yet ready to have the subject-specific criteria replace the general notability guideline, as this would require delegating authority to domain-area experts who have the required context to create appropriate criteria. The community remains wary of giving up its veto power, given the inability to validate credentials and the understandable concern that the standard may be drawn too broadly and thus result in more articles than the Wikipedia community can adequately maintain. isaacl (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Technically it is already the case that SNGs have some ability to create new merit-based criteria, but this is after the global editor community agrees that an SNG in that area is appropriate. (EG the current NSPORTS was put in by a global RFC, but the small changes made to it since have been strictly limited to consensus on its talk page). We don't have formal processes, but if we did, that's pretty much how I see it being handled. If the community finds that an SNG has, though its own control, added a number of criteria that are problematic, then another global RFC can be held. That may be a result of when a series of AFDs of articles that rest on the SNG are shown to be a problem; we can enforce our "veto" in this fashion. This can help urge to only create SNGs when there is a clear need for it; reusing existing ones or see how the GNG can be used instead, and keep the CREEP of having a few dozen different SNGs to worry about. --Masem (t) 21:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you feel the winds of change differently. At present, I don't foresee a large-scale movement to make subject-specific notability guidelines supersede the general notability guideline in the intermediate future. Until English Wikipedia's consensus decision-making tradition shifts to something that scales better, personally I don't think matters will change much. The sports-specific notability guideline has only survived through its deference to the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This whole discussion came from the previous section of whether the GNG or the SNGs were superseding the other, of which I've pointed that has has traditionally been, that it should be neither superseding - it is "GNG or SNG" as WP:N is written as well as most of the SNGs that defer to the GNG should the topic not met its criteria. To align several different conflicting statements made since, I think it is important to stress that most of the confusion can be resolved as long as it is understood that the GNG is not sufficient for notability, it's only a presumption of notability to allow a standalone. This makes the GNG equal in weight to any SNG (barring those like NCORP that seek to be more restrictive than the GNG for good reason). The GNG is the necessary catchall, and though it and how articles grow and survive, it can lead to completely new SNG and/or additions to existing SNG to cover new topics that emerge (for example, as eSports are coming into a major growth mode, we may need to see how applying the GNG works, and subsequently how that factors into the SNGs; this is a potentially good test bed of this mechanism). But all this is not to change practice or make any massive guideline change, but provide clarity that I'm seeing on how to define notability, the GNG, the SNGs and the processes around it to avoid confusion that the misunderstandings between editors come up when discussing the roles of these guidelines. --Masem (t) 21:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've been following this discussion and many others that we've been having for years now, covering these exact relationships and roles that have been raised in this current thread (achievement-based standards, presumption of notability, gradual increase in sourcing in articles, and so forth). We've tried many times to add clarification to these guidelines. But so far, they have just been too many different opinions and not enough desire to modify the current text. isaacl (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately it's unclear if your initial statement I think there is a consensus that some sort of notability reform is needed is true. English Wikipedia's community is just too large and decentralized for consensus to work as a decision-making mechanism (as I have discussed previously), particularly for changes that affect underlying guiding principles. In the place of empowered groups to make decisions regarding, for example, the need for an article on a topic, balancing encyclopedic coverage with the available resources to maintain articles, the community tries to enact a set of self-governing rules, and tries to patch them bit by bit as issues arise. Eventually the community may see that this approach has too much overhead and is too complex, as Clay Shirky discusses in "A Group is its own Worst Enemy", versus biting the bullet and adopting some form of hierarchical structure. (Hierarchies of course have their own weaknesses that would have to be mitigated.) isaacl (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we are in general agreement. It is why I prefer working in AfDs and other pages to develop local consensus first and then develop proposals from that. I do think there is a general desire to clarify our conception of notability, but I think where consensus is lacking is how to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to give some examples of AfDs which, in your appreciation, went south for the wrong reasons? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Likely" revisited

  • This is not a minor change. Changing the tense of the verb makes it look like this practice is old hat, which it is not. We have not thrown out any of the criteria just yet. It is pretty clear already what is "presumed" notable already. I don't see any need to make the change that was made - unless we are making the criteria old fashioned (on a whim). Also, "consensus" in this discussion consists of about five editors. Some larger consensus seems to be needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest. To me this appears to be a AGF- POV edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Which is the norm for most project space discussions: editors boldly edit to clarify the meaning of the text to make it reflect the current understanding of consensus. Presumption has only historically worked because it was assumed to be rebuttable. An editor raised the concern that the word is confusing. People use it in a way that was never intended to be used: the consensus here currently and historically has been that the presumption is not a guarantee, but a starting point. Likely captures the meaning of that consensus better, and still links to the rebuttable presumption page. The footnote is describing what word was historically used in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Tony ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Steve Quinn, not a problem. I would appreciate if you struck the AGF-POV thing, though. This type of consensus building and bold updating of policy and guideline pages is normal, even for very significant ones. As a project space regular, I do this frequently to make policies and guidelines reflect current consensus or practice, and would never have done so if it appeared controversial. We don't need a project-wide consensus for things such as this unless there is enough objection to it. There seems to be now, so I'm willing to drop it because it is minor. The only purpose here is to help people understand that notability is not a guarantee of inclusion, which is the reason for this insanely long thread with subthreads. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Sorry for pinging you again. Hopefully this is the last time for awhile. No problem with striking the comment - it has been struck. Regarding another matter, maybe its because I am a little late in this thread - but what do you mean that notability is not a guarantee for inclusion? Supposedly, the only way a topic can have an article is if it is deemed notable. If it is deemed notable - it stays. So how do I wrap my brain around this idea? Is this something you fleshed out earlier in the above thread? If so, no need to repeat yourself, I will try to see for myself. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:N is a guideline that provides a rebuttable presumption of an article. There are 14 reasons for deletion, and notability is only one of them. Additionally, we can choose to limit our criteria to whatever we want, even in XfDs and decide that the guidelines are wrong and that we don’t want an article on something. IDONTLIKEIT is actually a perfectly good reason not to have an article, so long as the reasoning behind why you don’t like it is very strong and doesn’t contradict policy. We should and do delete plenty of things that are notable and we should and do keep many things that aren’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, if you think of, analyze and write down what you intuitively judge, sometimes you really have something. IMO on notability such is really a combination of importantness and enclyclopedicness, with wiki-suitable sourcing being being a key objective quantifier of those two things. And the context is for an enclyclpodeia of the approximate size of en Wikipedia.

So we should not go too far with requiring importantness in a vacuum. For example, an article on an obscure, low prevalence animal species is appropriate. An article on a person whose only importance is that they got 20 million hits on youtube last week may not be. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relative Notability

After trying to write an article about an obscure subject, I found it difficult to find sources that other wikipedians would consider notable, I started thinking about how we consider something notable. The system we have right now works well, but it certainly excludes topics that experts in certain fields would consider notable in their respective fields. The article I was working on (McCallum Bagpipes Ltd) is on the largest bagpipe manufacturer in the world, and only bagpipe publications (the largest of which) write about it. It has small mentions in major news outlets but no specific mentions. As the largest bagpipe manufacturer in the world, shouldn't it be considered notable? That's where my idea of relative notability comes from. If something is considered more notable under its specific topic, then it should be considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia page.

Now, you could say, I've got a rock in my backyard that's definitely more notable than the others, does it get a Wikipedia article? Nope, that's where the second rule comes in. That rock would have to belong to some category that is notable. Say, you're Bill Gates, and the rock in question is some big boulder out in the backyard of your mansion. Now we're in the category of "Things at Bill Gates' mansion" which (when related to Bill Gates) is notable. Another user on the IRC, I can't remember his name, was writing an article on a Mongolian filmmaker, who was a very prolific artist, but only well-known in Mongolia. He would not normally be considered notable, but if we bring my idea of relative notability to the table, he would be considered notable.

I know there are all sorts of edge cases to my idea, but I'm sure that, with time, it could be developed further into a workable idea that could be implemented into Wikipedia's idea of notability. Any comments or ideas for changes would be greatly appreciated. Rey grschel (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Within our editor culture it would be much easier to make a case for notability based on coverage in those specialist publications, than being the largest company that does X, whatever X may be. Industry-specific journals or publications can certainly satisfy notability guidelines, so long as they are considered independent and reliable of whatever subject you are trying to write about (i.e., not merely McCallum Bagpipes Ltd press releases). There's no requirement for mainstream media coverage, nor is there a requirement that someone be internationally famous (re: your comment about a Mongolian filmmaker). postdlf (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point. Most of my argument is about the coverage in specialist publications, not really about being the most X. ((u|Rey_grschel)) {Talk} 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that's something I missed for sure. ((u|Rey_grschel)) {Talk} 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that bagpiping is certainly a much larger group of people than the LARP you participated in, but I understand your point. Some aspect of "this subject is notable under the context of a notable topic" would need to be amended into my idea. ((u|Rey_grschel)) {Talk} 17:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking non-notable subjects to their WikiData entries

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Linking to wikidata.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Unclear or misleading content

In the "Why we have these requirements" section there is "We require the existence of at least one secondary source...". Would someone point me to this specific policy or guideline giving the number "one secondary source"? WP:PSTS states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." and further "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". This may need to be reworded as simply "We require the existence of secondary sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"sourcing" seems too much like verbing if you ask me (and might be somewhat unclear to the casual reader). Don't see what is wrong with the current wording, when compared to the PSTS policy requirements. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"...Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources", in the same bullet, is however wrong afaik: there's no such requirement in the WP:OR policy afaik. It omits the possibility to write starting from tertiary sources, e.g. a copy-paste job from the 1911 Britannica (like many articles used to be). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I would argue that a copy-paste of something like Britannica - which should include what sources it used - is not a problem since we can go to their sources to use to expand further or be more specific where the sourcing comes from. Additionally, this is pretty much no longer done since we've exhausted that. But relevant to this is trying to keep in mind that there is the end-state of the article that we want to get to to show clear, unquestionable notability, and the presumption of notability from GNG/SNG; copy-paste of a proper tertiary source would be basically meeting the GNG by default as long as the tertiary source had identified sources to start from. --Masem (t) 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
... which doesn't address the problem: the WP:N guidance should not redefine the WP:NOR policy by claiming something is in that policy which is not. The example is a tangent to illustrate the problem, not the problem itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The key to Notability isn’t primary/secondary/tertiary nature of the sources... it’s the dependent/independent nature of the sources. We need to demonstrate that someone independent of the topic considers it significant. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Independence is a key factor, absolutely, but it is not the only factor. There are many many independent sources that are just presenting data without any transformation of that information (read: primary sources) that would not be sufficient as the sole sourcing for an article. --Masem (t) 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:PSTS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Yes, the line here is too strong by saying its a requirement, but it is a very strong recommendation, and why the GNG is built atop that. --Masem (t) 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
...which still doesn't address the misquoting of the WP:NOR policy in the WP:N guidance. One of the core ideas of the NOR policy is not interpreting what is in sources, but rendering them correctly: this is leading by bad example, i.e. practising exactly the opposite of what the policy tells a Wikipedian should do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we need to change it, but I'm finding there's a circular argument between the pages, at least with the words quoted, so it's not just a straight forward change. (WP:N says to go to WP:OR, WP:OR says to go to WP:N)
Right now we have We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.. I think we need to change it to We require the existence of secondary sources so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement to avoid novel interpretation of sources, and coupled with the need for independent or third-party sources, objectively demonstrate that the topic has received attention beyond simple rote repetition of primary information from an independent source to establish the topic's relevance to its field. (bold changes). The first two bolded phrases fall immediately out of discussions above, but the last one is very much new and I'm not married to the language. We need something that gets to the point of why we want secondary sources, more than just avoiding OR. It's not the only reason for secondary but I'm not sure if I have captured it in the most succinct way. --Masem (t) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Tx. Maybe makes it a bit too complicated. "As an article can't be based on primary sources alone, per the WP:NOR guidance, at least one secondary or tertiary source is needed to write it" or something in that vein (without the abbreviations and duly linked) might work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This article only has an external link, but no explicit sources currently. If I'd be improving its references I could find primary sources and tertiary sources (the Deutsch catalogue to start with), but maybe not secondary sources (I've never seen a secondary source about this composition). Just an example again, just trying to make clear what we're talking about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a case where the article should be put to Wikisource, and on WP, linked into a list of all Schubert's works, ultimately. The fact you have the tertiary source, that at least justifies having the present stand-alone. But if someone decided to dig into sources and found nothing that talked of that sonata further, then it should be removed, but in this case we have several ways of retaining the content within WMF projects and still listed/searchable within WP. --Masem (t) 16:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Re. "That's a case where the article should be put to Wikisource" – don't think so. We know that multiple independent sources must exist. That's GNG. I don't think that the idea of the "existence of at least one secondary source ... per NOR" needs to be transformed into something that reiterates the entire GNG. I'd transform it rather into something practical: you must have at least one non-primary source at your disposal to set up an independent article about a topic, or there's no way the article can comply to WP:NOR. That you must be able to demonstrate that there are more than the one you have access to (if you have only access to one) is GNG. That there's no way to get started with the article if you have access to none is NOR/PSTS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This goes back to separating "notability" as the end goal for an article (without a deadline), and the GNG as a presumption to allow the creation of one for deletion. They are not equivalent. Notability should be proven out though secondary sources at the end of the day, but for right now, the coverage in the tertiary source (which is supposed to collect primary and secondary sources alike, not just primary) seems reasonable as a GNG metric for the article. I fully accept that its listing in the tertiary source suggests more sources can be found, so the article shouldn't be moved at all yet. But if I really wanted to get rid of it, and I spend the time and effort to go to Europe and exhaust the bulk of printed records since the composition of that piece, and found nothing, then I have proven out the GNG presumption was wrong, it cannot be shown notable, and then we can talk deletion or moving it. But I have to do that work to start that. Until that point, we're fine with the tertiary source showing the GNG is met and retaining the stand-alone.
Also keep in mind, various SNGs can be met by a primary source, as long as that source is reliable. (Eg if a person wins a Nobel prize, I can use the Nobel's committee's blurb about that person to establish the article as a primary source). That doesn't violate NOR off the bat, but clearly the article would need more sources to be improved beyond that to better meet NOR and notability. --Masem (t) 17:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I found an accessible secondary source on the Schubert sonata too (not much text about the composition but at least it is a secondary source).
Re. "Notability should be proven out th[r]ough secondary sources..." – no, it shouldn't. It is demonstrated by non-trivial independent sources (i.e. independent of the primary source). Secondary and tertiary sources are grouped as "independent". The tertiary source may be a mere listing, in which case it doesn't count towards notability, but a separate detailed article in e.g. an encyclopedia does count. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Primary/secondary/tertiary are not the same metrics as independent/dependent or first/third party; WP bases the nature of secondary sources as having tranformed primary (and sometimes other secondary) information, regardless who makes it (An autobiography is a dependent secondary source). --Masem (t) 17:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"...not the same metrics": correct. Thus, "...should be proven out th[r]ough secondary sources..." incorrect as a generalisation: it should be proven through independent sources. "An autobiography is a dependent secondary source", generally: incorrect – an autobiography would be a primary source regarding the person who wrote it. It can be secondary and/or independent on certain other topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not just independent sources, or just secondary; it is "independent secondary sources" that is critical for notability - authors unconnected to the topic (independence) providing some type of transformational evaluation of primary sources (secondary) to show the topic's relevance to the its field. Many sources are independent but not secondary - this is typically news reports (not op-eds), which is not sufficient for notability. Sources can be secondary but not independent, such as press releases praising a person or company or product, and leads to COI-type issues. Sources that are being used for the GNG and towards notability need to be both independent and secondary. --Masem (t) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
And to add, an autobiography can be secondary, if the writer is opining on their past (just as interviews are generally taken as secondary). If they are just listed out what they did and when they did it, that's primary, but framing those events to how they impacted their career is secondary. --Masem (t) 18:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it's independent sources for WP:N. Secondary is another metric. The sentence that currently tries to make a connection between WP:N and WP:PSTS's "secondary" is dodgy while it ascribes content to that policy which simply isn't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It's always been independent and secondary, the secondary nature to establish why the topic is deemed significant in the field. Yes, the sentence in question needs to be fixed, but WP:N has long based on demonstrating the existence of independent and secondary sources. --Masem (t) 06:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ec

Francis, I find this section hard to follow. Every statement seems agreeable and I can’t find an actual problem. What is the problem you see below with the current text connecting WP:N, secondary sources, and WP:PSTS? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
"We require the existence of secondary sources so that..." should be tweaked to read "We require the existence use of secondary sources so that..." The burden of proof should not be left to other editors to prove that a secondary source "exists" somewhere out there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
As long as its understood, based on AFD practice, that as long as the secondary sources have been identified at either the talk page or the AFD (but may not yet be incorporated into the article) with consensus to keep, that this is considered the "use" of secondary sources. We've used "existence" to mean that they have been proven to exist and identified, but not required to be included. --Masem (t) 18:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
===Notability===
Further information: Wikipedia:Notability

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

I believe that this is generally understood to mean one source, but this can be difficult to confirm.  Discussions can be found at WT:Verifiability/Archive 49#Notability section and WT:Verifiability/Archive 64#Minimum third-party sources in an article, below which the content fails WP:DEL7.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It obviously means more than zero, but even at zero, “should” leaves some wiggle room. Biographies from ancient history, for example, will be kept, even if the only source is a biography by the subject’s son. One third party (aka independent) source is sufficient (not ideal, not preferred) for squarely encyclopedic topics such as distant history or non-controversial science. Multiple third party sources, sometimes more than two dependending on depth of coverage in each, is required for current commercial products, companies, their founders and CEOs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
This is where I think there's a point made above discussions. First, separating the notion of what notability should be after an article is fully developed compared to the GNG, and the idea that notability should be evaluated with more weight with other similar topics in the same field. The GNG is purposely absent of how many sources is required to satisfy it, because it is more about the total coverage from the sources, but in generally, the GNG is a minimum number of expected independent, third-party sources with secondary coverage, and ultimate, the final demonstration of notability should be based on many many more sources above that. But as SmokeyJoe points out, if we are talking ancient history, people from those period may only be documented well in a few sources, in contrast to bios today. And of course, the type of sources that apply changes with field as well. We're never going to include a number as that will immediately be gamed. --Masem (t) 01:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Unscintillating since WP:STICKTOSOURCE also says: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.". I also agree with SmokeyJoe since in many cases, a single independent source is sufficient. In fact, since WP:ALLPRIMARY shows us that all sources are primary for something, the example Francis Schonken provided us with This article actually has TWO sources in one! (Primary/tertiary). So, we see that in this case a single source meets the minimum multiple sourcing recommendations. Huggums537 (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I think to address the confusion of the the problem, WP:PSTS needs to be changed. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." is terrible wording since WP:ALLPRIMARY proves that all sources are primary for something. Therefore, according to this wording, no article with a single secondary source should exist either since the secondary source would also be primary for something. All anyone would have to do to argue for the deletion of the article is argue over whether it is a primary or a secondary source, when it is in fact both. Huggums537 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC to raise NCORP standards

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC:_Raising_NCORP_standards Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How niche is too niche?

How broad does coverage need to be to satisfy the GNG? Would a few independent and reliable niche-market sources suffice? Is a video game notable if it’s only discussed by websites that cater to gamers? Are there any WP:pages I missed that discuss this? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If a certain field has a wide variety of sources (as like video games), that means its likely not niche. On the other hand, if there's only one work that covers the field that is underwater basketweaving, that's probably a bit too niche to be considered notable without non-nice sources. --Masem (t) 01:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, gaming was probably too mainstream of an example. What about a small number of established reliable sources that specialize in covering underwater basketweaving?
Or what about non-English media that’s covered only by English-language sources that specifically cover non-English media? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It's really hard to draw a line, but one thing I would consider that if something is not niche is there is infrequent but sufficient coverage of the field in more mainstream sources to show that the field has attention, even if 90%+ of our coverage of topics in the field are limited to the field's only works. If the championship of underwater basketweaving appears in national newspapers every few years, that's something, for example. Can't give exact numbers, obviously. --Masem (t) 01:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so we’ll say underwater basketweaving itself is plainly notable. But are topics in the field notable? Should we have an article about the AquaWeave 900x that was thoroughly reviewed in virtually every underwater-basketweaving publication (but nowhere else)? Or the HydroTurbo Duo Pro that only a few of them discuss in any depth? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying is that if you can show a reasonable handful of topics get some coverage outside the field, and you have a means to determine reliability of the niche sources, then its reasonable to have articles on notable topics within that field. That said, you can't go overboard. The best example I do know I can point to is the MMA field. Several years ago there were problems with proliferation of articles from this rather niche area, and caused a number of problems. It did end up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and so you might find more history there (Talk page archives) or looking at the archives at WP:AN. --Masem (t) 02:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Remember that something may not be notable enough for its own article, but it can still be noteworthy enough to discuss in the parent article. If the new “Hydro-Weaveomatic 500” is only reviewed in the niche sources... but THEY make a huge deal about it... it probably isn’t notable enough for its own article, but it probably IS noteworthy enough to be discussed in some detail in the main “Underwater basketweaving” article. Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, but what I was wondering is whether the article should be kept or merged, not whether we should discuss it at all. Thanks, though! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the concrete example! I’m trying to find a universal rule of thumb I could take away from that, but it’s not coming. But the reason I asked was, there’s an anime series I’d never heard of, and it seems to have zero mainstream coverage; its article lists only a few anime-specialist sources, so I’m not sure it’s even that well known in animedom. They are well-established, well-known sources, though. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Anime would not be a niche subject for Wikipedia. We even have a whole Wikiproject for it - see WP:ANIME. In fact, you might want to ask there (on their talk page) for help to find sources. Also keep in mind that we do not require sources to be in English; so if the anime is well-known in Japan, you can use Japanese anime-specialist sources for it. (This happens often with video games that only get a Japanese release and we have to rely on sources from Japan for this.) --Masem (t) 02:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Not that the entire field is niche (there’s plenty of various mainstream coverage); the coverage of the particular subject, this one series, is limited to that field’s niche (the publications explicitly specializing in it). Like a little-known indie game that had a tiny story on GameSpot and not much else. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If the anime itself is reported about in RSes in the field of anime, then its reasonable to presume we can have a standalone on it. --Masem (t) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems a little generous, but all right. I’d require some kind of mainstream/generalist mention if I made the rules. Guess I’m too exclusionist. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

rcb team

which player who play for rcb next year Kanha chauhan (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a specific article in mind?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sekou Franklin?

Hi. Could someone please take a look at this and let me know if you think Sekou Franklin is notable or not? If you look him up on Google News, he comes up a lot for his social justice activism, which is how I came to hear about him. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC to update NOTDIR to preempt GNG for lists of transportation service destinations

There is an RFC to update WP:NOTDIR to state that wikipedia does not include lists of transportation service destinations, even if the individual services pass WP:GNG. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for that, really. Passing GNG is doesn't guarantee inclusion, just allows for it. Articles that pass GNG, but fail other content policies, such as NOT, are still not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to set a minimum rate of article creation

REJECTED
It seems clear that the primary proposal has been strongly rejected as unworkable. The other issues involved can continue to be discussed in new threads if desired.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to WP:SIZE, in 2017, the rate of article creation fell to 605 articles per day, which is the worst level since 2004. Since 2007, there has been a general downward trend (with two interuptions, the first in 2015 and the second this year). Since it appears that more than 95%, and certainly the vast majority, of notable topics are missing, mainly due to systematic bias (eg geographic and anglophone bias, recentism, and bias against the sort of topics that are taught, researched and studied at a university or equivalent level or above, etc), the rate of article creation should not be slowing down at all. The reduction in the rate of article creation is caused by the editor retention problem, which is in turn caused by excessive nomination and deletion of topics that ought to be included in the encyclopedia. If the rate of article creation falls to zero, or gets close enough to zero, the project will collapse from lack of editors. Therefore:

We should introduce a minimum rate of article creation (eg such and such a number of articles per day) below which the actual rate of article creation is not permitted to fall. If at any point the actual rate of article falls below the minimum rate then: (1) Advocacy in support of increased deletion or increased prohibitions on the permissible topics of articles should be forbidden until such time as the rate of article creation exceeds the minimum rate. (2) The introduction into notability guidelines of anything that would make it harder for topics to satisfy those guidelines, or that would make it easier to delete articles, should be forbidden until such time as the rate of article creation exceeds the minimum rate. (This probably applies to WP:NOT as well, though notability seems to be by far the main problem). James500 (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We're a volunteer project and so article creation rate depends on what volunteers are creating. Second, forcing a minimum rate means a lot of potentially junk or bad articles. No one is worried about how many articles WP has, that's not anything connected with notability. --Masem (t) 05:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
No way. Firstly, the quality of the encyclopedia can't be boiled down to "write X number of articles a day". Quotas invariably lead to a degradation of quality. Just look at DYK and all the errors that get through because they have to get a certain number of hooks onto the main page. This proposal will have the same effect. Second, there's no connection between deletion of bad articles and editor retention generally. We're more likely to drive good editors out if we suddenly tell them certain opinions are forbidden to express if some arbitrary condition isn't met. Reyk YO! 16:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Just no. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I started about 90 articles in 2017 myself and so did my bit, but I'm not sure how a quota would work. What James500 might do instead to stop the number sinking even lower is to attend to the RfC in which TonyBallioni proposes to make it even harder to create new articles. It's remarkable that he does not seem to have noticed that discussion yet while its supporters are trying to close it early on the grounds that everyone has had their say. At some point, I expect the WMF to wake up and realise that they risk turning the success of Wikipedia back into the failure of Nupedia but maybe they need to learn the hard way. Andrew D. (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

    — George Santayana
No, at multiple levels. The concept of a quota, and the suggested action when it isn't met. But maybe this could be a kicker to discuss the topic in general. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The reason why article creation has slowed is that a vast number of fine articles have already been created and it is becoming less easy to find subjects that justify one. Even if no new articles were to be written, Wikipedia, in its present state, takes its place as a magnificent resource for the world. There is no point in creating junk articles on more and more trivial subjects. That is why I direct my own efforts to curating existing articles rather than creating new ones. In the existing mature state of Wikipedia I don't see merit in creating a lot of new articles unless they are good ones. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC).
I agree with you reason for fewer new articles, but I think that it operates in a more complex fashion. The number of subjects that can garner the big expert volunteer time investment needed to make an article on them has diminished. Also the number suitable for mass production of stubs by by bots has diminished. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no. Further to Andrew D's comments respectfully he has it backward. Retained Article Growth was not impacted by ACTRIAL. The continued creation of trash by any idiot with an impulse to immediately throw up a new page on Wikipedia using a throw away account sucks up the time of Admins and experienced editors who would all rather be creating good pages or expanding existing ones. If you really want to support new page creation join WP:AFC where more than 2000 new topics are waiting for review. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I’ll only say two things: 1) there is no such thing as wrong on a consensus based project. If you think there is, you are welcome to fork this project and create your own wiki with a firm set of rules. 2) We don’t mass message for RfCs. The ACTRIAL RfC was widely advertised (I either posted it on 7 or 9 community boards/forums and WP:CENT.) Kudpung may also which to speak to the latter point. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
[[

File:Anaximander world map-en.svg|thumb|150px]]

The current ACTRIAL debate is already becoming one of the most heavily subscribed RfC in recent times. Not only, but it also has a massive consensus just like its predecessor did in 2011. I cannot really believe that James500 believes what he is saying in his tl;dr - it seems to me to more of just an antagonistic diatribe. Either that, or he just dosn't have a clue. I take his comments with as much seriousness as I would those of a flat Earth theorist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


Well, I don't think a quota system is feasible either, but nobody here except James500 seems to be worried about the rate of article creation, when I think we should be. There is no shortage of topics that need articles. I think in large part he's speaking out of frustration at his experiences at AfD. When I was participating there it was frustrating to me how WP:CORP would be extended by analogy to areas that had nothing to do with corporations. This wears you down, and eventually I just quit. I think we can all agree that nobody wants slick, professionally written corporate PR on Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that praise should be outlawed. One of my recent edits cited an award to an architecture magazine that was full of praise. IMO they deserve every word of it and more. But if that article ever came up at AfD, I'm pretty sure it would be attacked as spam. That's going too far, and I think it ought to be corrected. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
There are endless attempts to apply ORG by pure fiction. One of the most common is to try to pretend that some building or other location is an organisation. Restaurants, hospitals, churches, embassies, shops, factories, offices and school houses are all buildings. Yet there is this endless attempt to pretend they are not, because ORG contains absurd restrictions on sourcing not present in GNG or NGEO, or because, if the topic were admitted to be a building, it would have to be merged to the wider area in which it is located, rather than deleted. James500 (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
No, those are all organizations that have their business (or whatever) in a building. They might have had the building made for their business, or they might have bought those buildings, but the entity in the building and the building are two wholly different topics. --Masem (t) 13:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
We might be getting a little off topic here, but while it's accepted in theological circles that the Church is not a building. , the fact is there is still such a thing as buildings known as churches, which are often highly noteable landmarks, deserving coverage even if they are not the true Church. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Well I principally agree that many articles still need to be created and low article creation rate can be an issue, but this needs some perspective. WP is essentially never-ending process, that will always be in need of "important" articles still to be created. This is simply the nature of the project.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion seems mostly nonsensical to me. Already the goal of minimal article creation rate seems rather questionable to me, you can set such ("mandatory") goals for paid work but not for voluntary work or in a voluntary project. Furthermore what's that point in allowing article/material to be added that does match our usual criteria just to match the article creation rate? Polemically speaking this is asking us to drop being an encyclopedia as long as not enough articles are created- that makes no sense to me. Aside from that we have already have more problematic content than we can effectively manage. So why on Earth should we artificially push to worsen that problem?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I know we traditionally use things like "seems", "to me", "in my opinion" etc to soften our commentary but this is not one of those situations. This is an objectively bad idea. To say articles should be included just for the sake of creating N new articles per month is patently ridiculous. In my opinion this is the trolling conclusion to a long term push to decrease notability and sourcing requirements to negligible levels. At least in those cases it was possible to see the good faith intentions and reasoned if not reasonable arguments behind the proposals. This time it is pure silliness to advance a goal I can not fathom. Jbh Talk 16:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That is simply a personal attack and you know it. You would not like it if I was to claim the inclusion of detrimental restrictions in ORG was an exercise in deletionist "trolling". You would be the first to start screaming AGF. James500 (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
A wise thing to do. Thanks so much though for having the courage to make the proposal. As you imply, it's a matter of timeing. Things probably have to get even worse before they get better, but one day inclusionist values will return to their central role in this project. Just like they've been becoming more central in institutions all over the world. I look forward to the day when GNG is demoted to an essay, and no articles are deleted except for attack pages, hoaxes, and non-noteable BLPs. Keep the faith! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar, that makes some sense, and would make total sense if we lived in a static world with a fixed amount of notable knowledge. But we don't live in such a world. Due to population growth, increased levels of education, proliferation of reliable sources, technological change and various other forces, new notable topics are arising at an accelerating rate. The world's total amount of knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. It might be useful to read a description of Fuller's "knowledge doubling curve" - i.e. , up to 1900, it took a century or more for the world's knowledge to double. Now such a doubling happens in about a year, and by 2020 it could take less than a month. Yet as per WP:Size, our current appallingly low article creation rate means it may take this project ~15 years to double its no of articles! Unless we massively relax our insane deletion criteria, this project seems doomed to contain only an increasingly tiny fraction of the world's knowledge. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes... there is more information, but it is increasingly specialized. Which means a more limited pool of potential editors who can write about it. In the early years of Wikipedia, we had lots of generalists were writing generalized articles... the rate of new article production was high. Those generalized articles now exist, and we need specialists to fill in the gaps. There are fewer specialists in any given topic... so the rate of production goes down. It does not mean production stops... it’s just slower. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There might be more information out there, but as an encyclopedia, we also then must apply appropriate guidance to keep to topics that at least have some longevity, which means that that information doesn't always translate to a new topic. We're still going to be vetting sources, and our number of RSes really don't change that fast, and they're not pushing out more content. We already have a problem with too many editors jumping to write articles on current events despite WP:NOT#NEWS, and there's far too few admins and editors already to try to mitigate issues with promotional materials that are sneaked into the work from those with COIs. And it still remains this is a volunteer project. --Masem (t) 13:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It's an important point you raise about us being a volunteer project. Our number of active volunteers has declined since 2007, even though the number of internet users has more than tripled since then. The key to why is in the link I posted above: "significant boundary-spanning scientific consensus [finds] that human beings all desire the freedom (Autonomy) to get good at things (Mastery) that are meaningful to us (Purpose) ... it is only natural that people will resist the idea of being perceived as less-than-competent."
The current excessive focus on Quality repels many potential volunteers who understandably don't like being perceived as incompetent Randys. So we don't retain them as editors. Studies by the WMF have found it's deletions and reverts that are the primary reason for us losing valuable volunteers. It's mysterious why so many seem determined to keep raising Quality Control standards, make us ever more like the failed, elitist Citizendium, rather than the casual, inclusionist and fun project Wikipedia used to be in the early days. Still, as James suggests, this is probably not the time for Consensus to change on these matters, so I'll say no more for now. Thanks Masem and Blueboar for at least discussing this in a polite and collaborative way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Those immersed in it usually can't see it, but entering Wikipedia editing is a weird alternate complex universe, and a very very mean one. Probably the biggest loss is of the much needed experts.North8000 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
We were bemoaning the lack of experts even back in 2006... we didn’t lose them, we neve attracted them in the first place. What we have today was built by generalists... people who knew a little about a lot of topics. It added up to some great articles. But what we need now is a way to attract specialists... people who know a lot about a little. That’s harder to achieve, and so it is not surprising that the rate of production goes down. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how many never came, but I know that they routinely get chased away. This is from experience, helping experts that are going through the Wikipedia meat grinder has been a particular area of interest for me. And while it often involves them conflicting with people who are using policies to keep the quality level up, the more serious cases are conflicts with people who use policies to pursue personality disorders. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It appears that what you are describing is what I for lack of a better term will call the "Blog Model", where someone writes what they want, however they want - there are some aspects of Wikipedia that are like that and will always remain so, but Wikipedia having thousands of other people to create this 'blog', means every individual blogger (editor) has to deal with those others -- adding more others is dealing with more others telling each of us what the pedia will say - so that in effect will always mean, for any individual editor, they are beholden to all the others, not 'free'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I would think in light of this one of our goals is to write WP as if it were an accredited, highly-reliable source, even though we will never be able to acknowledge that because we are an open wiki. Keeping that in mind should help explain why we promote quality over raw information, which notability, at the end of the day, helps to support. --Masem (t) 15:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but my point is that this is a multi-person endeavor, which means multiple people will always be telling the individual-user what they can and cannot do, there is just no escaping that - and, people who just want 'to be free' will not be happy, nor will those same people in most every circumstance, here, actually hold to 'anything goes', which means, whether they admit it or not - they have standards, they want on this website, and its users, to apply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massive change to WP:CORP proposed

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#RfC: Adoption of the re-written NCORP guideline.

It is a massive proposal that, among other things, looks like it will remove Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports teams and all schools (not just K–12 schools). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh... there isn't a lot that is new in the proposal... most of it simply reorganizes language that was already in the guideline. Of course, the reorganization might have unintended consequences, so more eyes would be helpful... but let's not panic about it. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Best-selling book" as a notability criterion

How much weight should be given to notability claims regarding a subject writing a "best-selling book" (or BEING a "best-selling book"), given how the system is often manipulated? For example:

It seems to me merely appearing on a best-selling books list is essentially a meaningless assertion of notability. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. "Best-selling" is shallow-disguised prmotion speak. It verges to pseudo-objective meaninglessness. "Most sold", whether by number or price, for a defined time period, is objective, but the present-tense continuing "selling" infers current continuing sales and it almost certainly connected to a motivation to promote.
What is interesting to Wikipedia-notability is not facts, whether subjective or objective, but who is saying what. For any notability claim, Who is commenting? Are they reliable, reputable, independent? Are they commenting directly on the subject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Not Necessarily Being listed on a best-seller list does not constitute, on its own, "significant" coverage (the most important, yet most overlooked word in WP:GNG). Don't be lazy, go get those sources that show significant coverage! I'd also like to bring editors back to WP:NOTINHERITED: even if the book has significant coverage, the author needs significant coverage too for their article to survive a deletion discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
NOTINHERITED is only an essay, and it is extremely problematic. Claiming that a book reviews do not contribute to the notability of their author (1) violates the guideline WP:AUTHOR and (2) is WP:SALAMI, because writing the book was part of the author's life, and the book itself is nothing more than the author's thoughts committed to paper. They are not really separate topics. This line of reasoning leads to absurd results such as: commentary on words a person speaks orally out of his mouth contributes to his notability, but if he writes them on a piece of paper, then the commentary is on the piece of paper. Utter nonsense. James500 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

unfair notability

If someone played just one game of professional sports, they are notable in Wikipedia. Don't laugh. Within the past month or two, there have been at least two people in the US who have done that, one for basketball and one for hockey.

On the other hand, if an actor was in one movie, even a major studio, they are not notable.

This is not fair. What is the solution?

Solution A. The player must have played in at least 5 games. (This change would be in WP:ATHLETE)

Solution B. The actor in one movie, if named one of the top 5 credits, is notable. (This change would be in WP:BIO)

Southwest Boat (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war, but...

@TonyBallioni: You "see no reason to simplify the already clear language". I see no reason to revert a simplification where meaning is retained. If you see a specific area where meaning was lost, please point it out specifically, but I am going to revert it back to my revised version, since I carefully considered the implications to meaning in that edit. Less policy to read is better for everyone. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I have also replied to your accusation of disruptive editing. It was inappropriate to post that warning to my talk page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the minimum expectation from Wikipedia to post a biography of a doctor

Hi All,


I created a page in memory of India's most reputed Dental Doctor who has been serving the people for the last 50 years and died last year. He has contributed to the society in many ways and I wanted to publish the information about him in Wiki so people can come to know about his achievement. But the page is been often deleted under "Speedy deletion". Can someone help me in fixing the issues on this page so that it gets posted?

Venkaram (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Venkat.

You should take a look at WP:BASIC which provides guidance on what is required to support a biographical article. In short, the guideline provides: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." In the case of your dental doctor, you would need to find "significant" coverage of him/her in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
More