Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:56, 17 February 2009

To discuss the notability imparted by specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Noticeboard.

• WT:N
• WT:NN
• WT:NOTE

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives

Archive 1 is related to the page now moved to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Arguments.

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Relevance

• See also Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance (and archives)

Re-evaluate WP:N?

Based on the controversial and sometimes heated discussion at WT:FICT and many AFDs, I think that it may be time to really request comment on WP:N, to determine what it should be and if we should even have it. It is by far the most controversial Misplaced Pages guideline, and I think that there are a lot of different people on Misplaced Pages now than there were when it became a guideline, so it might be worthwhile to get some new opinions in one, centralized place. Opinions? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree and strongly suggest either abolishing notability altogether, downgrading to an essay, or moving it to Misplaced Pages:Inclusion guidelines or Misplaced Pages:Inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, this probably isn't the place to discuss what should be done with notability... we should just figure out whether or not there should be a more formal RFC, where such discussion can take place. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I support starting such an RfC. Best, --A Nobody 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that opining discussions is in order, but only if everyone is wearing a Flak jacket as it will doubtless be tempestuous. WP:N has too often been used in ways that contravene WP:CSB and WP:Protect. That it should be demoted to an essay or more simply to Misplaced Pages:Inclusion criteria would serve the bettermant of wiki's foundation priinciples. Its time to step back from ongoing obfuscations and simplify to facilitate accessibility and utility of Wiki for all editors... old and new. Schmidt, 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Following WT:FICT has been a nightmare, but from what I gather that is mostly because of the influence of this guideline, and apparent inconsistencies between it and accepted practice. Discussion on the issue is warranted. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(responding to Schmidt) Yep; we'd need a nice big "Civility" banner at the top of the page. As I said, this is Misplaced Pages's most controversial guideline. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If editors feel that nothing can be done to resolve FICT without doing something to WP:N, I've tried to outline how I would change the system to be more amenable to all editors at User:Masem/i (it is a work in progress). Short answer: we need inclusion guidelines, to say when a topic should be included in WP (but not necessarily an article) and article guidelines to determine at what level of coverage that a topic should receive an article. The GNG becomes one of the inclusion guidelines , but not the only one. Inclusion is still based on meeting WP:V and WP:IINFO. --MASEM 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd be best off eliminating the word "notability" altogether. It's simply not a necessary or useful word. Best, --A Nobody 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agree. As The Five Pillars stress verifiable accuracy, and "notability" is a wisp of smoke open to far too much personal interpretation. The infighting at Fict is a perfect example. To put contributions into a harnass of what is important or not important enough kinda flings a raspberry at the pillars. Schmidt, 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that in my scheme, "notability" would be a guideline, but only to assess inclusion, but it would be one of several possible inclusion guidelines that would be developed. Also note that we are also limited for indiscriminate information - we do have to put a cap on what is included to avoid that, but we should be much broader in what we do include. --MASEM 01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a cap is needed... we don't need an article about My neighbor's dog, unless there is a good reason to have it. However, it should be perfectly valid to have articles on video game characters and the like, even if they aren't "main characters," or have equivalent content in a list for the really low-importance ones. Even the most non-notable, according to the current guideline, video game character will be interesting to some people, and its exclusion detracts from the encyclopedia. However, I doubt that many people would be looking up My neighbor's dog. Anyways, I'll see if I can create an RFC sometime tomorrow or Tuesday. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, anything cover in any secondary sources or reliable published primary sources is worthy of at worst a redirect with edit history intact. The whole allure of the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit is it being a combination of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazettes, which means there's no reason not to cover anything that is covered in pretty much any print encyclopedia, even if it's an encyclopedia of characters. Best, --A Nobody 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why inclusion is one part, but "article quality" is another. A minor character is not going to have enough to talk about to establish a full article but can be placed into a list (redirects are cheap). What has to be made very apparent is that not having an article on a topic but still covering it to the degree appropriate for its sources is an acceptable solution (and much better than deletion or not covering it at all), and that non-primary sources are very important to establishing this "article quality". --MASEM 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I like Masem's idea. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Masem, the quality of an article has no bearing on whether Misplaced Pages should have an article about that topic. And the word "article" is also problematic. Encyclopedias typically have entries, one after another, in alphabetical order. Misplaced Pages has webpages. The idea that all of those webpages have to be "full articles" is simply not true. --Pixelface (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it should from an editorial standpoint, not notability or inclusion. Articles that are doomed to remain permastubs should be merged to a larger topic. Articles that lack sufficient sourcing on a topic we should include should be merged to a larger topic. Topics that, when expanded to make a non-stub article, would otherwise violate our content guidelines should be merged to a larger topic. Now, we do have to be aware that most articles are works in progress, but if we are going to move away from notability and into inclusion, we need to strongly emphasis appropriate summary style, in which we avoid creating many small articles in favor of grouped articles. Redirects are cheap and should be used as much as possible to help with searching. --MASEM 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Masem and Pixelface. One fiction example I was looking into shows one problem with Notability as applied to fiction. I looking for sources for Ms. Marvel (google news search). Now, while I'm sure that by going to the library and ordering some books, I could eventually prove that Ms. Marvel meets the General Notability Guideline, a cursory news search suggests that Ms. Marvel #35 is notable (an individual comic that Wikiproject Comics would not like), but Ms. Marvel (a 40 year old comics character) herself is not. The same happens for almost any serialized work. It is easy to find reliable sources that comment on 100 different episodes of a show, all of which feature a certain character, but never actually discuss the character in detail. In contrarion fashion, NOTE frequently supports aticles less worthy of notice, while discouraging more worthy articles. One size does not fit all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with stubs Masem. While your ideas about merging are interesting, they are not shared by the entire community. There is no set rule on when to merge. That is why merge discussions take place. And I've supported merges plenty of times, on a case-by-case basis. If someone wants to learn about a specific topic, why should they have to load an entire webpage full of topics they weren't even looking for? Different readers desire different levels of detail. If you like articles that cover multiple topics, go ahead and make them. It's not an either/or decision between lists and separate articles. Redirects may be cheap, but so are stubs. --Pixelface (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

... and there would be thousands of unmergable stubs... but that's a diferent discussion. Look to the Pillars... look to the Pillars. Schmidt, 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Call it my gut, but I have a feeling when thousands of "unmergable" stubs exist, someone will come up with an ingenious way to merge them. The wiki is 8 years old now, imagine what it will look like 8 years from now. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Stubs are not necessarily bad, but when you get to a point where no more information can be added to a stub and it is still a permastub, then per WP:STUB "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." There are also cases that editorially merging several small articles to a larger one can make a more coherent article - not just for fiction, but for many other fields like towns and villages, roads, athletes, and the like. And selection of appropriate container articles can help significantly to avoid the bloat. While WP is not paper, we do need to worry about page count to editor ratio and future maintenance of the work; if you take 2.x million page with 100,000 active editors in the last month, that means each person had to monitor 20-some pages uniquely to watch for vandalism and improper content. That's assuming all 100,000 are registered, of course. That's why merging and using appropriate summary style approaches is important, not as a means to remove content but to improve and maintain the work. Swapping out notability for inclusion is one step towards that. --MASEM 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If a stub has okay sources, there's nothing wrong with it. If a stub can readily be sourced, there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to copy information from several smaller articles and combine that information into a bigger article, go ahead. Towns, villages, roads, professional athletes — those get separate articles.

Misplaced Pages is not paper. And we don't have to worry about page/editor ratios. Currently, the English Misplaced Pages has over 8.9 million registered users, and around 2.7 million articles. Discounting multiple accounts and ignoring IP editors, that's about 3 editors per article. If you just want to consider editors who've made at least one edit in the last month, that's about 160,000 people. That's about 17 articles per person. If those 17 articles are all in the same category, they can be checked with the Related changes tool. They can be checked with watchlists. They can also be checked with public, shared watchlists. For example, these are the recent changes to the most vandalized pages on Misplaced Pages.

If vandalism is a concern, that's why protection and semi-protection exist. That's why ClueBot exists. What's why RC Patrol exists. That's also why some people want to implement Flagged Revisions or Flagged Protection. Merging is not a barrier to vandalism. With the Related changes tool, it's as easy to check 493 separate pages about individual Pokemon as it is to check 25 lists of Pokemon — as long as the articles are all in the same category.

If someone wants to make the article Characters of Kingdom Hearts, fine. But in addition to that, you can also have articles about specific characters. Merging does not actually improve content. It just re-arranges it. It's just a different way of presenting the information. It's easier for readers to compare and contrast that way. Although merging does keep content safe, if someone is going around acting like WP:N is a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So, I am looking at a lot of good ideas, but it begs the question: what is the next step? Ikip (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Now we need to create a large-scale request for comment, probably in a subpage here. I can probably start one sometime this week, although feel free to initiate one now if you want it started sooner. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus that the general notability guideline is generally good. But even most people who like the guideline concede that there is room to sculpt it around specific subject areas. Not wholesale exceptions, but certainly slightly lower standards that reflect the standards for their subject area. Randomran (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that so many people beyond me this time are calling for significant changes if not something altogether shows that there is no consensus behind notability at all. Best, --A Nobody 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Really a small minority. We've been over this dozens of times. If someone honestly has a good faith reason to believe we should get rid of WP:N, let's just take it to AFD. I wouldn't consider that WP:POINTy, not compared to saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to every failed effort to overturn it. Let's remove all doubt. Randomran (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, honestly, I think that's probably a great idea. But y'all know it will be just a little bit pointy, even if only because of the sheer irony. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And after reading WP:POINT, I have decided it's probably a bad idea and would make many many people very very unhappy with me. Still, tempted, but I think a formal RfC would be a better (if slightly slower) way to go about this. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really a small minority compared to the thousands of editors who create and work on articles deemed by the vocal minority non-notable and the millions who come here for them, plus the 188 in the category of Wikipedians against notability as well as all those who have opposed it. In the larger scheme of things, the shear numbers of editors opposed to notability is staggering. Notability is put simply anti-wikipedic if not illogical. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen, we can argue about what the community wants, or we can actually put it to the community. We had a watchlisted RFC where a tiny minority of editors felt that all spin-outs should be notable. I don't think there's any doubt that there is consensus for *some* kind of notability guideline. So people need to stop focus on scrapping it -- which will ultimately lead nowhere -- and start focusing on incremental modifications, which many people generally supportive of WP:N would also support. (Including me.) Randomran (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's probably support for some kind of inclusion criteria; I support that, but large numbers of editors do not support notability as people other than me have proposed something else and over 180 even go so far as to have userboxes opposing it. We need to abolish it and replace it with something that actually has real support. There's no reason why we should feel beholden to such a nonsenical term. Why not have an RfC that actually provides these options:

Misplaced Pages:Inclusion guideline

Misplaced Pages:Inclusion criteria

Misplaced Pages:Notability

"nothing" beyond WP:V and WP:FIVE

That other RfC wasn't an RfC on whether to have notability or not and it was about as divided as you can get with opinions and numbers all over the place. If you ask someone do you like green or red apples? That is not proof that they like apples over oranges because they didn't say anything about oranges and participated in the apple survey. Now, if we ask people about renames or replacements for notability then that would be somewhat more telling although yet again those who comment on this talk page are still far fewer than the decisive majority who in practice believe these articles to be worthwhile. Who knows why they don't comment in these discussions, but they do turn up on occasion in AfDs or on admin talk pages baffled when someone tries to delete the articles. We can cite numbers of policy page discussions all we want, but we can't preten that the reality in practice doesn't exist. There is no reason not to have an RfC that covers name changes, abolishment, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can agree that we need inclusion criteria, then that helps us make progress. I think that a name change is the kind of incremental change that would actually move the conversation forward. The problem is too many of these conversations start with a small idea that people might agree with, and then a bunch of other people jump in with more polarizing ideas, and we get nowhere. If there's anything we should learn from these repeated conversations, it's that we accomplish nothing when one side overreaches: then the other side responds with a hardened position, and we end up in no consensus. We can learn from the past discussion on renaming this guideline. A lot of the oppose !votes could be persuaded to support a rename if we could come up with a name that doesn't expand the scope of the guideline. A lot of people in good faith think that we already have a lot of policies on "inclusion": WP:NOT and WP:V and WP:MADEUP all talk about what we include or don't include. Whatever we rename this guideline, it needs to make it clear that this guideline is only the first bar to pass, and then other content policies apply. Randomran (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think a namechange is worthwhile, as a better set of inclusion criteria has never been proposed. It might be worthwhile changing the status of this guideline to a policy because of its widespread support. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The name "notability" is problematic because it a) smacks of elitism and b) is used subjectively in AfDs. Someone can make an objective argument based on "inclusion criteria" or "inclusion guidelines", but people do not make objective arguments based on notability. When editors come up with "non-notable", who knows if they are actually reffering to this page or some arbitrary personal standard of notability. It is quite clear that there is considerable opposition to this page and as such it is downright baffling that it is not marked as an essay or disputed. Because we already have inclusion guidelines on verifiability, this consensus lacking guideline that suffers from widespread opposition and limited support just seems unnecessary if not excessive and cumbersome guidelines. The best set of inclusion criteria yet proposed is Misplaced Pages:Notability/Historical/Non-notability. As is this page currently is a hindrance to building a paperless encyclopedia, which is why people have made far better proposal and why it has widespread opposition and so many calls to rightfully abolish it or demote it to historical or an essay. In any event, "notability" clearly interferes with our ability to maintain and improve Misplaced Pages and as such can be ignored accordingly. None of us are or ever will be bound by it. Sincerely, --A Nobody 08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument for a name change isn't to improve or change the inclusion criteria, but to stop confusing people by using a loaded term like "notability". Sophisticated Wikipedians hear notability and think "third-party sources", but the average newbie thinks it's an invitation to argue about how many people care about the topic. And then there are people who focus on importance/popularity/usefulness, in order to avoid talking about the basic need for third-party sources. (I'd personally like to steal the name from Misplaced Pages:Independent sources, but that's just me.) Getting away from "notability" could clear things up, and there are a few prominent inclusionists who would find the third-party sourcing requirement more palatable by another name. Randomran (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree, as I don't think there is any support for a name change at all. Notability is indeed a "loaded" term: it is associated with quality commentary, balanced coverage, independent perspective, constructive criticism, in-depth analysis and many other positive characteristics of a good encyclopedic article. Furthermore, I never seen a proposal that would could act as an alternative to this guideline that could be used to resolve disputes between editors because all the alternatives to this guideline I have seen are not backed by objective criteria, but by personal opinion which is subjective and open to challenge. The fact is that over the ages, people have gathered knowledge from a multitude of sources, and have always relied on secondary sources for analysis, criticism and context for the purposes of interpretation. In the absence of any other source of guidance (other than personal opionion) as to which topics should or should not be included in Misplaced Pages, I suggest we continue to follow the tradition of Standing on the shoulders of giants. In fact, since this guideline is such an important pillar of Misplaced Pages, I think WP:N should be made policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Those are all interpretations of notability that require a lot of experience with Misplaced Pages. Notability tends to be loaded with judgments of importance, significance, and usefulness. There has to be better terminology that focuses on balanced and deep research -- which is what you're getting at. Truthfully, I think "standing on the shoulders of giants" would be a more accurate name than "notability", because it conveys that this is about research rather than importance. Too bad it's too long. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• There is essentially no real support for the policy as is. We have other sufficient and objective sources of guidance such as "verifiability", the five pillars, etc. Notability is such a farcical aspect of wikipedia's guidelines that is increasingly apparent it was never intended to be taken seriously. In fact, I have come to the realization that this page is actually an extended April Fool's Day joke and as such should be marked as "humorous", because in this case, if we continue to support it, then we are not standing on the shoulder of giants, but rather being trampled under the feet of comedians who never intended anyone to take something so silly as serious. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any ideas that will actually gain consensus? Or would you like to keep proposing ideas that will only appeal to one wing of Wikipedians? Randomran (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pretty much anything other than notability will be able to gain consensus whereas notability, which only appeals to one wing of Wikipedians, has failed to gain consensus. Best, --A Nobody 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey hey - hold on there. In my experience the only project-specific notability guideline fork which works is WP:ATHLETE - and it's actually stricter than the GNG in places. I'm certainly aware that there's a lot of noise about reducing our notability standards for the sake of appeasing a minority of editors, but a zero threshold on notability is already the de facto standard in a great many areas of the project - most anime, for instance. Show me an article which would be FA-class if not for our standards on notability of fiction (there are, at this stage, dozens of userfied articles which could be worked on to this level) and I'm prepared to consider than the rules could be bent in some cases. I remain unconvinced that this is going to happen any time soon.

As for "notability" itself being a dirty word, well, let's see how well that works. A two-year-long effort to make "cruft" into a dirty word has probably reflected more poorly on the protagonists than on the general standing of the term on WP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I have argued before, putting proposals on a policy talk page is really counterproductive. These policy/guideline talk pages tended to be echo chambers full of editors who support the rule. Drilnoth, I suggest you quietly create new ideas about this, then post a RfC. As these talk page arguments show, arguing in circles here produces nothing.

I have taken issue with the validity of Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise before. The way the questions are set up, etc. Ikip (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with Ikip. There is no point in complaining about WP:N for what ever reason if there is no alternative to replace it. For any change to be effected, a better alternative needs to be put forward to replace it, but this has been tried before and failed many times. If you read through the archives, you will see that several proposals have been made, but they more or less boil down to inclusion criteria or exemptions from WP:GNG based on personal opinion (or personal opinion dressed as "consensus"), rather than on objective criteria such as the best source of coverage. WP:N works because it is based on the fact that there is a hierarchy when it comes to source quality, at the top of which sits reliable secondary sources as opposed to less reliable or questionable sources.
  Masem's proposal is just another set of inclusion critieria based on personal opinion dressed up as "consensus" that won't work, because notability requires objective evidence. In the opinionated world of editorial disputes where rock beats scissors beats paper, reliable secondary sources is the only authority we can rely on to resolve differences of opinion because they provide the commentary, context, criticism and analysis that is need to write a good article, whereas less reliable sources or personal opinion do not have the authority to resolve editorial disputes. In my view, there is not alternative to WP:N, which should be made policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• In answer to Randomran, I don't see how you can get around the idea that notability is a judgemental term. Remember, WP:N is a set of "inclusion" criteria, and the idea of inclusiveness is itself judgemental. You might like to compose a line or too along these lines, but I would not bother myself. If you go to WT:IMPORTANCE, you will see that notability was chose because it is a less judgemental term than most. That is good enough argument for me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Request for comment, this talk page, common practice, the 180+ editors with the anti-notability userboxes, etc. all show that this guideline lacks consensus. Indeed, a good deal of editors actually supported the name change when proposed. I have come to the conclusion that this page was not meant to be taken seriously and perhaps the best way to go is to not even bother marking it as disputed or failed, but as humorous. Then we can move on and have a real and serious discussion about inclusion criteria and guidelines as having "notability" be one of them is no different than having "things some wikipedians like" as the guideline. Best, --A Nobody 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody: 180 editors with userboxes and however many others who are voicing opposition on this talk page compared to the number of Wikipeida editors actually shows that the overwhelming consensus is in favor of WP:N. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you assume that everyone but those 180 editors are in favor of N? --Pixelface (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin, the problem isn't that it's a judgmental term -- of course even our most central guidelines involve some amount of judgment. The problem is that "notability" is a term that isn't a good summary of what the guideline is about, and thus leads to a lot of confusion. When an argument about notability begins, it causes people to make bald assertions of importance, or to lash out against what appear to be assertions of unimportance. Really, we want the discussion to focus on research and evidence. You said it yourself, it's standing on the shoulders of giants: we use independent sources in order to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming a playground for our own theories and biases. Everything you say suggests there's a more accurate name for this guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A nobody, as I wrote above. You are wasting your time. Being the last person to respond to every argument is not a "win", people that post here already have their mind made up.

Editors here know eventually you will give up and notablity is still going to be here. Ask Pixelface how effective arguing policy is on talk pages. Ask the dozens of editors in the past who have argued about nobility here.

Focus your energy in cultivating relationships and creating strategies with like mindeded editors. Ikip (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the name. Myself, I think it almost totally useless, because it confuses the question of accidents of what type of sources happen to be findable by the people here, with suitability for detailed treatment and a headline. Fortunately, its days are numbered, because in a year or two Google books will be able to find such references on anything at all that has ever been in print anywhere, and we'll need something more discriminating than the ability to count as far as 2. But more fundamentally, I think the entire concept of notability is wrong and unhelpful. I think we have totally confused 3 different problems:

1 whether the content belongs in Misplaced Pages at all

2 in what detail the material should be treated

3 whether the material should go as part of a paragraph on a more general topic, as an item in a list, as a section of a bigger article, or as a separate article.

We have been concentrating upon the 3rd of these, and it is really the least important of the three. For most topics, it doesn't actually matter from an encyclopedic standpoint whether it should be part of a long article or separate smaller one. Paper encyclopedias have been made with many short articles or with fewer but longer ones, and they work equally well and have been equally successful, though the trend in the last 20 or 30 years has been to smaller chunks. But whatever difference it makes in print is much less for the web. In print, long articles needed an index; with hypertext, the material will be found just as well no matter where it is or how it is organized. Why then do we even care about what should have a separate article? Basically, because the outside world treats it as a standard of merit with respect to the subject. Many people like to see themselves and their groups and the things that interest them with as big headlines as possible, even if the content is just the same. (This is exaggerated by the increased prominence google or other search engines give to article titles). I would myself, like to see the entire concept of notability removed from wikipedia, and replaced by the separate concepts of suitability, importance, and useful arrangement--by points 1, 2, 3 above.

This is not a statement from an inclusionist point of view--I am actually much more of a mergist, and only support many of the articles I do because of the unfortunate fact that in the present editing framework, merged content on certain subjects tends to get deleted unreasonably. Anyone can edit implies not just that anyone can add, but anyone can remove, and removing is so much the easier. Even those who cannot write can erase. DGG (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If google books will soon make it easy to find reliable third-party sources on a lot of topics, then we don't even have a problem. I've always maintained that WP:N is actually a pretty low threshold -- if some reliable source somewhere has said something about a topic, it's notable. I'd be thrilled if we spent less time nominating articles for deletion and more time sourcing those articles. You'd have to be a pretty radical deletionist if you believe that reliably and independently-sourced articles don't belong in Misplaced Pages. A lot of what you say says we should just stick with WP:N and do some research. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Nobody, I don't think you can say that this guideline does not have consensus, on the basis that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I could understand this arguement if there was better alternative as I have suggested above, but there isn't. You say you want a real and serious disucssion about inclusion criteria, but what is the alternative proposal you are making? I see none on the table, just a lot of complaining and special pleading for topics such as fiction in general, and plot summaries for TV episodes in particular.
  Generations before us realised that the best way to advance our knowledge about the arts & sciences is by Standing on the shoulders of giants, and that is true today as it ever was, simply because reliable secondary sources are the best sources you can get for an article and for resolving editor disputes by virtue of the fact they have more authority than editors' own opinions. If you have a better of way of expanding encyclopedic knowledge, then I would be interested to read it, but if you don't, then it is hard to take your complaints of sour grapes seriously.

In answer to Randomran's earlier post, research and evidence are not activities allowed by WP:OR, this is left to reliable secondary sources, so I don't think renaming WP:N is a good idea if you follow this line of thought. We editors merely note what our peers have seen fit to research and study, and use citations of their focus as a basis for article inclusion. I think notability is the best term. When editors get annoyed about the term, they forget that it is not about importance or unimportance, this guideline is about the type of sources which are needed to write encyclopedic articles.

In answer to DGG, you still need to have inclusion criteria (item 1) and what better way than to base it on the type of sourcing that is need to write encyclopedic articles? Since commentary, criticism, context and analysis are all need for an encyclopedic exposition of topic, then you you may as well judge a topic suitable by the fact it is the subject of sources that provide this sort of coverage. I think you might be forgetting that topics which fail WP:N are also likely to fail WP:NOT, as to write an encyclopedic article you need encyclopedic content. As I see it, those editors who are seeking to water down WP:N or plead for exemptions for their pet topics are in reality asking for the the scope of Misplaced Pages to be broadened to allow non-encyclopedic content, and to make Misplaced Pages more like an Almanac that contains all sum of human knowledge pertaing to life, the Universe and Everything, regardless of its encyclopedic value. In order to do this, you will need to go to the WP:Village pump (policy) and propose that the first of the Five pillars be dispensed with. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the problem is that most of those topics will not be in any real sense encyclopedia-worthy. There is a good side: we will have material for candidates who lose races for US Senator, & finally be able to establish those articles. But we will also have multiple stories for people who lose races for the city council, and the local board of zoning appeals. We will have multiple stories for the construction not just of major shopping centers, but of every strip mall. We will have sources for every published book, no matter how unimportant. Now, there are some people who think we should include this down to whatever level of detail. I do not. An encyclopedia is considered an encyclopedia if it has a certain standard, that is probably somewhere above that. We already do have rules for handling some of this: One Event, Not Directory, and so forth. In practice, we will need to expand these considerably, and the real standard of notability will be WP:NOT, as modified by what Google happens to have gotten to. I think this is going about it backwards, and will yield wildly inconsistent results. Rather, we should decide in a positive way what we do and do not want to include, assuming we have sources. We will still have WP:V, but it will only apply to whether there's contents enough, not whether the contents come from sources that show notability. Gavin, I do not want to do abolish the pillars--I do not want to lower the standards in general. (Most of us want to adjust them one way or another in various directions, butt that's a matter of detail, not of a basic guideline). I do want to find a way to apply them consistently with the topic, not consistently with Google. DGG (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you're still showing reasons why we should rename. As you said, people get annoyed with the term when they interpret it to mean "importance". After all, we colloquially think of something notable as something important. When I'm referring to evidence and research, I'm referring to what we use to WP:Verify an article. As you said, notability is about standing on the shoulders of what reliable sources have said, and not about importance. Wouldn't it be better to shift it away from the terminology of importance (consult a thesaurus on "notability"), and towards sourcing? Randomran (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since WP:N is based on the idea that topic is 'suitable' for 'inclusion' if it is the subject of 'significant' coverage from 'reliable' and 'independent' sources and therefore likely to 'satisfy' Misplaced Pages content policies, it is hard to imagine another name based upon one these adjectives that would not be more judgemental than notability. However, my concern is that a name change would be a thinly veiled attempt to attack WP:N by giving it a name that disparages its purpose, or detracts from the fact that notability is based on the idea that a topic which is the subject of relatively good quality coverage is worthy of inclusion. That is why I would object to names such as WP:INCLUDE, WP:SATISFY or worst of all WP:SELECTION.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No one agrees on what is "significant", which is why "notability" lacks consensus. Editors might agree that we should have some kind of inclusion criteria, but we need something objective. This useless and confusing guideline includes weasel wording like "significant" "notable" etc that people interpret differently and as such it just causes confusion and frustration, which is why I believe it was intended as a joke, because it's just unnecessary given our other more objective and clear inclusion guidelines. Best, --A Nobody 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could assume good faith, and help us come up with a name that would enhance, not disparage its purpose. You once called it "standing on the shoulders of giants". Just for the sake of a brainstorm, would you be open to exploring names that convey that purpose -- of covering only what reliable sources have independently covered? Randomran (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• In all honesty, I think notability is just fine. It is less judgemental than WP:IMPORTANCE, yet more elegant than WP:INCLUSION. "Notability" is the name that is fit for purpose. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Could you live with a name change to something like "WP:third-party sources"? I think such a name would make it 100% clear what we need for an article, and drastically reduce any misinterpretation or confusion. Randomran (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Or the completely judgemental, but completely descriptive: WP:Article Worthy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• LOL. We're not worthy. We're not worthy!!!. If we choose this name, we can justify putting a big picture of Mike Myres at the top of this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability and the Five Pillars

Personally, I think that as long as things are verifiable and are encyclopedic, complying with the (oft forgotten) Five Pillars, which doesn't even mention "notability" (although it is linked to via "vanity press"), it should be in Misplaced Pages. The first pillar states that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and should be verifiable, with no original research, and with references. It also states that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information or battleground. And that's about it. Except for that one link, which I don't personally think makes sense, the current notability guideline has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages's five core principles. The first pillar should be the guide for what Misplaced Pages contains. It does not say that Misplaced Pages contains only "notable" topics. And the first pillar also says that Misplaced Pages contains information from general and specialized encyclopedias, alamanacs, and gazetteers. A specialized encyclopedia could well contain topics which fail the current notability guidelines, and so they should be included per the five pillars. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think you will find that a topic that fails WP:N will tend to fail WP:NOT and vice-versa, which is why no good alternative to WP:N has evolved, or a least one that is based on objective evidence and therefore can be used to resolve editorial disputes. This is why I think WP:N should be elevated to being a policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that plenty of topics which fail WP:N pass WP:NOT. For example, Undermountain, currently at AFD due to "non-notability." What part of WP:NOT does it fail (the whole article is verifiable, even if through primary sources in many places, although this is acceptable per the current revision of WP:FICT)? Additionally, it would certainly be contained in a specialized D&D encyclopedia, so why shouldn't it be here? Besides, if everything that did fail N also failed NOT, then what's the point of having both? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Here, here! Exactly why no one seriously supports notability and why it should be marked as humorous, failed, or an essay as it serves no legitimate purpose, but by contrast is detrimental to our project. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is a polarizing proposal that won't accomplish anything, because it will never gain consensus. Randomran (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that "notability" currently has failed to gain consensus, we might as well try. Best, --A Nobody 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • How has it failed to gain consensus? I see a guideline that's existed for years, and has been applied with consensus in thousands of discussions. The most you can show is that there are times when we might use a different standard -- something you have yourself said above in that we should have an inclusion standard. If you want to build consensus, you're going to have to reach out beyond the inclusionist wing of Misplaced Pages. Randomran (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Because it has been challenged time and time again and is used unevenly and subjectively in thousands of discussions. There are over 180 eidtors who have a userbox opposing it, many with notes on their userpages denouncing it, essays against it, the common practice of article creation and page views which go against it, etc. It has existed because a vocal minority push it through, but it in no reasonable reading of reality reflects the actual consensus of the community, which is why a large number of editors supported the name change in the link you provide above and why opinions were all over the place in the RfC link you also provided. There is total lack of agreement of what "notability" means or if it is even the best way to go about things. The notion that it has consensus is a fiction. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Are you therefore proposing that Misplaced Pages have an Unwritten constitution as opposed to one that is written down and subject to attack? If so, I suggest you make your proposal known at WP:Village pump (policy).--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
          • We already have a written constitution, the Five pillars, Verifiability, etc. "Notability" is like the anti-alcohol amendment, something tried and failed. Perhaps a better analogy is with slavery. For hundreds of years educated people argued in defense of slavery, another elitist and therefore condescending concept. But eventually reasonable people won it even though it took a good deal of determined conflict. "Notability" has been around for a mere few years. If we can get rid of slavery, which had support for centuries, we can get rid something that has lacked support for but a few years. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
        • You'll have about as much luck getting a consensus to get rid of WP:N as Palestinians will have convincing Israel that they shouldn't exist, or vice versa. In other words, it will get you some high fives from people who agree with you, but it won't end the WP:BATTLEGROUND. In fact, I'd bet everything that it will inflame it. A final solution is going to have to be respectful to moderates from both sides. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
          • All I and everyone else has to do is just ignore it, because it clearly has pathetic support and as such no one needs to even treat it seriously as if in even exists. We have some real guidelines and policies, but so long as everyone who disputes this useless guideline acts as if it doesn't even exist, it will be effectively marginalized. Best, --A Nobody 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
            • If you actually believed that, you wouldn't be trying to convince us that we need to get rid of it, and the guideline would already be ineffective as a tool to delete/merge/redirect articles. So I'm not sure what you're doing here. You've stopped reaching for compromise, and have started using belligerent disagreement as a strategy. Good luck with that. Randomran (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
              • The compromise is that we have an inclusion guideline called "inclusion guideline" and we get rid of nonsensical use of subjective terminology like "notability." Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
                • I'd support that, or something like that. Trust me that you'll gain more on Misplaced Pages by looking for the widest possible common ground. Randomran (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)It has begun. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Soon, it will end. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• With still far less support than the number of editors in the category of those opposed to it, which is why a more correct wording is "trampled under the feet of big brother." Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Give it time; an RFC lasts for thirty days. Certainly, at any given point views can change. The RFC at WT:FICT is evident of that; there would often be three or four oppose !votes followed immediately be three or four support !votes. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think you should have been more honest regarding the objectives of the RFC by saying that you want to change Misplaced Pages into something more like Wikia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it just depends on what kind of content is used. Some material on Wikia could belong on Misplaced Pages easily enough. Some of it doesn't. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• So what inclusion criteria dou you have in minde that can distinguish between the material that could belong on Misplaced Pages, and that that doesn't? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dare ya to answer this question

Does notability only apply to account article creation, or does notability also apply to the inclusion of new information into the article? A question has come up in an article, and I would like some clarification. - Arcayne () 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability does not affect article content. Once a topic is shown to be notable, any content that is appropriate per other content guidelines can be included. --MASEM 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "account creation"? I read that to be asking if an editor can create an account if they are "notable" - which is not at all true. If you mean "article creation" than the basic criteria for all articles is that the subject must establish some sort of defined "notability" requirement. What that is varies from subject to subject. As for "inclusion of new information" it depends on what you mean - or, in other words, the information itself may not need to be "notable" but the source of that information does have to be verifiable and reliable, so there is a chance the information may come from a "notable" source, but there is no requirement that all sources must be "notable" per se. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Soundvisions, article creation is what I meant to say (I've stricken the incorrect text and added the correct word). Tightening down my question, a topic has come up in discussion wherein a news event refers via RS reporting to subject matter in an article, ie., a fictional character. Does the new information to be added have to meet any criteria for notability before being added to the article? My understanding that notability is permanent; if something is notable, then it always is. - Arcayne () 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the strictest sense, no, Misplaced Pages:Notability does not govern article content. However, we do have a host of content policies and guidelines like WP:Verifiability and WP:Trivia and even subject-specific stuff like WP:VG/POP where editors may argue using the word "notability" in its English language sense, i.e. noteworthy. Nifboy (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:TRIVIA again a little more closely. It does not deal with content, only how that content is presented. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but in practice the usual response to such a section is to nuke it entirely (much the same way a "merge" result at AfD might not result in any merging at all), so I do consider it a content guideline. Nifboy (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, in practice a handful of editors might go about doing that, but a far greater number of editors restore and write these sections. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you can consider it whatever you'd like, but you would be wrong to consider it a content guideline, because it is a style guideline. When content gets nuked, it is up to rational editors to consider if there was any content that shouldn't be removed, and to restore that specific content. I'm not saying that all such-and-such should be whatevered (I've dropped a few nukes myself), I'm saying that content found in trivia sections should be cleaned up on the merit of the actual content, not the section title. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is in regards to the Dendermonde nursery attack. The suspect in that crime was described as having worn facepaint and hair coloring similar to that of Heath Ledger's Joker. Initial, verifiable reports were from a policeman speaking to the media, and several other RS media outlets picked up the story. A subsection in regards to the 'in popular culture' was attempted in the Joker (comics) article, but nixed by consensus (as being first a BLP vio, which, of course, it wasn't) as being unrelated. The suggestion was made in talk to provide a See Also link to the Dendermonde article, to offset any undue weight arguments from initiating. This is currently being opposed on the basis that it isn't a notable inclusion. One of the editors suggested that notability doesn't apply to information added after the article's creation, which confused me (and prompted me coming here for some knowledge). - Arcayne () 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It still isn't a notability issue. More in a sense is if the content is appropriate for the Joker article, which is mostly up to editorial discretion. That is, there is no policy that says it has to be mentioned there, no policy that says it shouldn't be mentioned there, it's just how well it is incorporated into the article. Calling it a "pop culture" reference is probably not the right way to include it however. --MASEM 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely concur with tht, Masem; we are to be neutral, not callous. How would you suggest it be incorporated? There are folk who seem willing to fight to the death over it even being mentioned, but that's mostly regular dramahz from one or two folk. - Arcayne () 03:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability does not affect article content, per se. WP:N is substantially a consequence of other policies. WP:N is, as I look at it, a special case of WP:NOR, especially the section WP:PSTS, where for an entire topic, there does not exists sufficient sources to meet WP:NOR, and in these cases, WP:N, empowered by WP:DEL#REASON, is a reason for deletion of an article at WP:AfD.

Others seem to see stronger connections between WP:N and WP:NPOV. Yet others want to tie WP:N to either WP:V or WP:RS, but I disagree with that because WP:V and WP:RS are far more permissive than WP:PSTS or WP:N. Some people say that none of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR can be understood without a parallel reading of the other two.

So, no, WP:N does not govern article content, but the policies underlying WP:N do themselves govern content. If you were thinking a piece of content could be contrary to WP:N, then probably you’d best go to WP:PSTS. In short, sources, usually reputable secondary sources in borderline cases, should govern all content. If someone else has written about it, we write about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And parts of WP:NOT come into play in this case as well. Not everything that is in a reliable source or "newsworthy" is encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a Notability guideline for TV?

I just noticed that there really isn't one. Music, books and movies all have specific inclusion criteria that they have to meet to be here, but for television programs it's basically "if this is or was on a major TV channel at any point, it's notable". We should totally tighten this up a bit dudes, TV shows don't deserve special treatment. Misplaced Pages is a general knowledge encyclopedia which means ideally we should begin purging all the non notable programming that don't have significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Things like short-lived, canceled shows, foreign television and all that useless stuff. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There should not be any notability guidelines at all. We need some kind of inclusion criteria that does not include the elitist and subjective word "notability." Best, --A Nobody 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, my next article will be about my dog rover, and I'll have my best friend write one about me. First I need to take the editor of the local reliable-source newspaper out to an expensive dinner and convince him to feature us in the "meet your neighbor" page. Hmm, maybe a notability guideline is appropriate after all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's totally inappropriate. WP:V would be sufficient to cover your dog article and if covered in a reliable source, then not really a big deal if the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit had an article on it, especially if it was a basset hound and yes I am serious. It wouldn't bother me any. "Notability" is nothing more than a crux for "I don't like it" as used in practice. We can have an inclusion criteria or inclusion guideline, but something without a subjective and elitist word. We might as ell have "popularity" as our inclusion guideline if we're going to use something like "notability." Best, --A Nobody 02:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but I think most editors would disagree with you. If I'm wrong, that's okay too, I'll go with WP:CONSENSUS on this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are over 180 editors listed in a category for Wikipedians against notability. By and large in practice, i.e. if we take into account the thousands who create and work on articles but don't participate in these discussions and the millions who come here for these articles, it is fairly apparent that the consensus is against notability. People seem okay with some kind of inclusion criteria, but "notability" lacks real support. Best, --A Nobody 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You could be right, but I doubt it. Perhaps a centralized discussion or at least a village pump discussion is in order. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt in mind that notability lacks real support. Even if 100 editors pledged to support it, well there's still 180 in the category of Wikipedians against notability. I am not opposed to a discussion that actually gets widespread participation from article creator and writers. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do think A Nobody is trolling? --Pixelface (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He must be referring to himself in which case I agree that he shouldn't troll, as the rest of us are having a serious discussion. Best, --A Nobody 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an easy one. If Misplaced Pages doesn't want those articles, you say: "Don't create articles about your pets." "Don't create articles about yourself." "Don't create articles about your friends." Next. --Pixelface (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, articles don't have to meet WP:MUSIC, WP:BK, or WP:FILM. They are guidelines. Television shows aren't getting any special treatment, "dude." Read NOTPAPER. If something would be in an encyclopedia about television, it belongs in Misplaced Pages. Television shows are not notable because they're written about, they're notable because people watch them. Advertisers pay TV stations money to run ads during the shows. Misplaced Pages can have articles about short-lived shows, cancelled shows, and "foreign" television. Which country do you live in? --Pixelface (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Norse: as you said, TV shows don't deserve special treatment. That is, general notability guideline is sufficient. Right now an awkwardly-named Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction), covering a chunk of TV life forms, is under <quite heated> discussion. NVO (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, I'd like some input by some hardcore deletionists like myself, though the discussions thus far have been noted. I mean, why should articles like Strike Witches that are totally devoid of reliable, third party sources exist? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they exist and should be added to the article by those who can translate rather than remove it altogether. Best, --A Nobody 22:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to agree with my inclusionist friends on this particular point. That almost every television show ever made has an article does not indicate that we are lax on TV programmes when it comes to notability requirements - it's simply an function of how difficult it is to get onto a broadcast television network without being noticed by a variety of reliable third party sources. Much like WP:ATHLETE uses "played for a professional football team" as a leading indicator of coverage which may or may not be present in an article at a given point, "been broadcast on television" is a good guarantee that sources do exist simply because people are paid to cover what's on the box. Certainly the current Strike Witches article shouldn't consist entirely of plot and release trivia, but even your average hardcore deletionist doesn't entirely discard the possibility of potential sourcing when considering whether an article is worth keeping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the article, it has a novel series, two manga series, an OVA, and 12 episodes that aired on Fukui TV. Do you think nobody in Japan is familiar with it? I'm going to take a wild guess and say you don't live in Japan. Do you speak Japanese? How do you know what sources exist in Japanese, dude? --Pixelface (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

私は日本語、馬鹿で完全に流暢である。 また…WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, adaptions and popularity aren't a solid basis for inclusion, dawg. The sites on that google search are just trivial mentions and blog entries, not reliable, third party sources. Being broadcast on television, despite being quite a feat, isn't a basis for inclusion either. We don't include books just because they're put out by notable publishers, do we? The answer is no, because that doesn't guarantee coverage in reliable, third party sources. Even if this "Strike Witches" program were notable(it isn't), others like Pelswick, Michiko to Hatchin(and all other articles with "dust in the wind" anime that are made each season as their subject) and Just Legal would not meet the same criteria. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We won't really know until the japanese[REDACTED] starts sourcing articles like we do. Our anime articles have more sources than theirs, and I know they got a ton of magazines that dissect anime to the point of being a NOTE fan's nightmare. If you knew Japanese, lived in Japan, and wanted to spend a lot of money on magazines, you could probably establish notability for all of Strike Witches's major characters, and probably some minor ones. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the Japanese character set installed on this computer, but if you speak Japanese, great. Try looking for sources in Japanese. I don't care what that essay says. Popularity isn't a solid basis for inclusion? Could you explain that to me? If something is popular, that means it's well-known. One of the synonyms of "notable" is "well-known." Strike Witches appears to not be a hoax , although I could be wrong.

Did people watch the anime? Then why would it need to be written about? Did anyone buy the mangas? If they did, they felt it was worthy of notice. "Reliable, third-party sources" are not a requirement. But if they exist, the subject is presumed to be notable. I find it very difficult to believe that you think Strike Witches is not notable, since you've edited the article 8 times and you uploaded images of a map, the characters, and the logo last July. --Pixelface (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, everyone and their grandmother knows Misplaced Pages's definition of "notability" is vastly different from the actual meaning. "Consensus" too. Good arguments and very astute investigating though bro. I'm done trollin' here, but I still think the points I've made are valid in context with other deletionist arguments I've seen whether I endorse them or not; they're something I could totally see coming from a lot of deletionists on this site. Later dawg.

P.S. I also created the Strike Witches article ;)- Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because some people on here make up their own defintions for "notability" or "consensus" doesn't mean they're right. Yeah, I noticed the article Strike Witches was created by The Norse, who was blocked indefinitely last January. I figured you were a troll from 4chan from your first two edits. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quickly throwing this onto the record: 4chan isn't my thing, I abhor the place. Their little fads are just really widespread. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording

Since its accessibility to editors is a topic of some discussion I made an effort to simplify the language used in the intro, as it seemed to have gotten sort of convoluted and confusing to your average joe plumber new guy. Feel free to tweak what I've done but I'm suggesting making a vigilant effort to keep it simple. It's not a legal contract and doesn't need to be worded in that rock-solid loophole-free way. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:16, 13 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The statement "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable" is contraversial, and conflict with the section "Notability requires objective evidence". Is there any alternative to this wording? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable - sources may exist which have not yet been included in the article. The citations should be added promptly." something like that?-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, it fails WP:N. That does not mean that it is non-notable (which cannot be proven). What is does mean is that there is no objective evidence cited in the article to support the arguement that it should have its own standalone article. I have therefore deleted this section, because a statement that cannot be proven or disproven does not offer any guidance. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable" is carefully worded and not controversial - it is clearly, indisputably true. For it to be false, every unsourced article would have to be unsourceable. That is absurd. Also, an article not citing reliable secondary sources does not mean it fails WP:N. There is a minority view that sources, "the objective evidence" must be in the article, but that is not and afaik has never been in the guideline, and is something different. So I restored the sentence.John Z (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, merely because this statement does not offer any guidance per se. It is a bit like saying that "Some articles that don't not cite reliable secondary sources may be notable, but on the other hand some might not". It is not a minority view that objective evidence is need, and for good reason: it is a matter of conjecture whether a topic is notable or not in the absence of reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely not what that statement means. It's meant to complement the idea that we search for sources, and have a little common sense about articles. For example, even if "Frankenstein" doesn't have sources right now, it has probably been worthy of notice to reliable third-party sources and they just need to be found. If anything, we should change the wording here to be closer to that of the section Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. The lead isn't really meant to introduce new ideas, it's meant to summarize ideas within the main text. Randomran (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell

This edit was recently made to the nutshell, but it was reverted. I think that this is a valid edit as it is already a widely accepted standard that A) Sources for apparently non-notable articles must be searched for in good-faith before deletion, and B) Deletion of non-notable articles is a last resort, with merging or redirecting preferred. This is established by WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:N itself. In editing the nutshell, it was my hope that this often neglected or forgotten fact (many AFDs, such as this one, indicate that) would be made more prominent, as it should be. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Drilnoth's edits were very helpful in clarifying the guideline. The only thing I added was that we often redirect or merge non-notable material. Randomran (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just leave it as is. This is guideline, not a set of proscriptive rules. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm... it was just reverted again. Some discussion would seem to be needed; what is the opposing view on this topic? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand it. Gavin opposed it on the basis that it brought AFD into this guideline, but it hasn't done anything that isn't already basically written within the guideline: articles that fail the guideline aren't kept for a standalone article, which usually means a merge, redirect, or deletion (let alone speedy deletion, in some cases). Randomran (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, any reference to deletion, merger or redirect is pointless. The fate of articles that don't meet our policies and guidelines is decided elswhere, and is the subject of peer review, the results of which are determined by consensus at the time. Lets keep this guideline simple and focus on article inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• There are large numbers of AFDs where non-notability is cited as a reason for deletion without the nominator looking for sources, in violation of numerous policies and guidelines like WP:PRESERVE and, more importantly, WP:BEFORE. My hope with the expansion to the nutshell would be to better describe current guidelines so that they might be more widely seen and followed. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And the opposite it true also. The fact is, inclusion criteria are not followed at WP:AFD as you well know. It is the consensus after peer review that is followed. I agree that the WP:N can be used as the basis for an arguement that an article should be deleted, but it does not follow that invoking this guideline is a magic spell ("NOTABILITUS!") that is guaranteed to achieve this result. At the end of the day, participants at AFD are free to ignore the rules, and we should respect this. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's clear what notability does. "If it passes the guideline, it's notable..." The fact that there are common sense exceptions is a given for guidelines. We ought to follow it to its logical conclusion. Linking to guidelines about redirecting, merging, and deleting allow people to put this guideline in context, without getting lost in the details about how/why to delete/redirect/merge. Randomran (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• If a topic passes this guideline, it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a standalone article - I think you are mistaken to read anything more into this guideline other than this simple statement. Of course there may be exceptions, but I suspect they are beyond the scope of this guideline because their existence is likely to be the subject of personal opinion, not objective evidence.
  As regards the influence of WP:N on the discussions at AFD, I must disagree with your view that there is any direct relaitionship, and I don't think we should be attempting to "join-the-dots" between them. In the first instance, if an article is deleted, it is the direct result of a process that defined by WP:DELETE. Secondly, if an article is nominated for deletion, it is subject to peer view during which the participants to the deletion discussion are are asked explain their opinion and refer to their understanding of what they think is policy. Thirdly, pages are only deleted, merged or redirected if the administrator believes there to be consensus to do so. The point I am making here is that WP:N cannot proscribe or directly influence the outcome of deletion debates because this guidline is at least twice removed from the AFD results.
  If we were to attempt to "join-the-dots", then it would be difficult to provide details of the process, all the exceptions, and influences on AfD discussions. However, I would argue that this is an example of trying to get the tail to wag the dog that has no practical application. You could try reverse engineering WP:N from AFD to guideline, but I think it is just too complex a task to undertake. Lets keep this guideline simple and focus on article inclusion, which is what it is about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

General interest

Following the discussion about Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) (which isn't closed yet) I'd like to raise here a point that I have raised there as well.

The present notability criteria do not reflect in a direct way a consideration of "general interest". Subjects might be interesting even while they are not very notable. In such a case an encyclopedia not including these subjects would be lacking.

The reason I made this argument originally was because fictional stories and characters etc. are usually of interest to those who have read/seen about them, while mostly not being very notable in the sense of Misplaced Pages policy. In this context the term "general interest" would be used in reference to those people only: the criteria for notability should be based on notability for the subject at large on one side, and the notability of the story/character to only that group of people that are interested in that subject on the other. As opposed to the present policy which defines notability of all subjects in an identical way.

I think the notability policy should reflect this. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is intentional. Misplaced Pages does not treat subjects with novelty value any differently from articles on other subjects. A novel subject may have an article because it has received significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, but then again it's no different from any other article. "Fictional stories and characters etc." are one thing we're not exactly short of, and it's well established that where these don't receive significant real-world coverage we shouldn't be detailing them. Misplaced Pages is not the only place on the Internet for this kind of content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would agree, and add that although an element of fiction may appear to be of general interest, it is important to distinguish between a real-world and in universe perspectives before making any judgement.
  Clearly fictional characters generate a lot of interest on Misplaced Pages because we have a lot of articles about them. What is not understood by many of the creators of these articles is that these characters are only of general interst from from the perspective of overarching work of which they form a part, rather than being notable in their own right. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Fictional stories and characters etc." are one thing we're not exactly short of, and it's well established that where these don't receive significant real-world coverage we shouldn't be detailing them. That's absolutely untrue — which is apparent from many AFDs. --Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely this well established policy that I came to challenge. I think that as soon as an "overarching work" (in the words of the previous post) is established as being of general notability, from that moment on the criteria of notability of any subject from within that overarching work should be based on the group of people that are interested in that overarching work, and only on that group. The logic being obviously that otherwise the information on that subject will be restricted to the most general.

Let me explain: if you are not interested, then "the most general" information will be enough for you. It is for such that the usual encyclopedial artical is written. But if nobody were interested in the subject, no article would be written at all. The article is written because some people obviously are interested in the subject. But for those people "the most general" information will not be enough.

If somebody would argue that the same is true for any encyclopedia, I would counter that given the possibilities of the internet, we can - and therefore should - satisfy the hunger for knowledge not only of the non-interested, but of the interested as well. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, notability is not and never will be a policy and in fact we recently started a poll elsewhere to demote it to an essay given the Category:Wikipedians against notability. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline not a policy.--Patton 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Debresser, I suggest you have a look at the results of Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise, where you will see there are lots of editors that share your viewpoint about spinout articles, but there is a lot of opposition too. The problem as I see it is that, even with topics "from within that overarching work", Misplaced Pages still needs some sort of inclusion criteria, if only to avoid duplicate articles and content forks. There are many other other reasons why WP:Notability is needed, but the bottom line is that although many editors oppose it, we are yet to see a proposal for a set of alternative inclusion criteria that dovetails with Misplaced Pages's other policies and guidelines that would work any better. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I still have yet to see any reason why "notability" is needed, whereas I have seen clear evidence that it fosters the battleground environment of Misplaced Pages. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking of this issue of late, and I agree that we need a balance here. There is absolutely no reason we can't cover fiction to some degree (as well as other fields like sports, etc.), as long as we are aware what type of sourcing is available and limit ourselves to covering those areas to a limited extent if there's no additional sources beyond the primary available, and recognizing what reliable sources are for such topics. Hard-line sticking to notability makes this difficult, which is why I think defining when we can break out an included topic into a full-fledged article is a better approach. --MASEM 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes will think of our articles as if they were in a book (yes, I know, I frequently cite the paperless claim, but what I am saying here is different). Looking at my Compton's and Brittanica volumes, you have articles where at the end of the article or sometimes within you will have a whole page that is a list or table (list of presidents, etc.) and so for say video games, something like User:A Nobody/List of Chronicles of the Sword characters would be what you have outside of the main article text but on a separate page to better illustrate that part of the text. Now as you can see my main source thus far is a published strategy guide, yet, I see a published strategy guide as somewhere between a primary and secondary source. The game is the primary source made by game makers. The strategy guide is not quite a secondary source, but is put out by a separate company from the game publisher. And while someone gets the main gist of the game from the main Soul Calibur III article, those interested in more coverage can go to pages like what I am working on my userspace for a more detailed illustration of the game, which helps readers to understand how the game uses characters, how the characters relate to each other, the kinds of names used in the game, the kind of story-writing of the game, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the basic problem that fictional plot material is almost all completely trivial from a real-world perspective? I honestly don't see what the big deal is about letting sites like Memory Alpha provide extremely detailed in-universe appraisals of plot elements and characters in particular fictional works, while leaving us to detail them from the point of view of someone sitting outside the television. That way, people can trust that Misplaced Pages treats a subject seriously and neutrally and assigns due weight to fictional elements, while being able to lap up intricate plot detail in more appropriate venues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds like original research to me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I thank Gavin Collins for pointing me to Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise. I see that indeed many share my idea. I agree that defining criteria for notability within a group of people is hard - if not impossible. This is where consensus should be the ruling principle. I also seem to be in complete agreement with MASEM on this.