Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 13 February 2012

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 Shortcuts WT:N WT:NN WT:NOTE

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, 82Auto-archiving period: 10 days

To discuss the notability imparted by specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Noticeboard. See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance (and archives)

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

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, 82Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Notability of players of Gaelic football, hurling, and handball

Editors focused on our notability guidelines may be interested in the discussion regarding notability of players of Gaelic football, hurling, and handball.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Inherited notability

At Misplaced Pages talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there was a discussion a while back about how to apply WP:NOTINHERITED, and a commenter recently suggested that the discussion be brought here for better input. My suggestion was that we explain that while simply being related to a notable person was not a source of notability, sometimes reliable sources cover a person because of their relationship to someone notable and we shouldn't use NOTINHERITED to second-guess reliable sources. I felt that we were setting a higher bar for relatives of notable people than we were for other individuals. Another user reasonably pointed out that fluff sources like People like to get interested in the children, partners, etc. of celebrities, but that we shouldn't treat that coverage as establishing notability, and said that it was more about what sort of sources are available. Would anyone like to comment? (For context, the individual that prompted the discussion was Marcus Bachmann, who is the husband of American representative/candidate Michele Bachmann and whose business activities had received coverage in various mainstream news sources, but who might not have received that coverage if he were not married to her.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, if the topic meets the notability guidelines, they meet the notability guidelines. If not, they don't. I think the idea is that you aren't notable just because you are related to someone. But if you are covered because you are related to someone, that's fine. We just care about the coverage. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Hobit.  Clearly we want at least a redirect on Marcus Bachmann, and I heard enough buzz (radio and TV commentary) that I assume that he passes WP:GNG, but I'd guess without having any more knowledge than that that the topic is better covered as part of the Michelle Bachmann article.  The discussion about the children sounds like a WP:DUE prominence issue rather than a notability issue, the sources are following the children because they want to know more about the famous person, so with the material about the children it is the famous person that is attracting the attention of the media.  Similar case was the policeman in New York City that sprayed some protesters, some editors created an article about the person, but at the end of the day (at least IMO), the material was still about (a member of) the New York police department and not the person.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles "redirected" which are determined to be nn

Elementary school articles (and probably others) which have been determined to be nn, are, instead being "redirected." This seems to thwart the concept of article notability. I can now search and "find" the "redirect" which in turn, directs me to the School District (or whatever) article. I think a regular search might find it anyway, but why play with notability? I don't see why we don't continue to delete articles that have been judged to fail notability requirements. Redirection seems to encourage the construction of these articles. I can now insert ] in a "See also" subsection or link it in the article itself, or insert it in a dab. As if it were notable. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability is only to determine if a topic gets a separate article, that's it. It does not limit coverage within a larger target. We explicitly state that non-notable topics can be discussed in the context of a broader, more notable topic. Redirects are cheap and help with searching and locating non-notable information. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is WP:V verifiability.  WP:N notability is a guideline—it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the world whether verifiable material is in a stand-alone article or integrated into another article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exciting news. I will now start an article "Student7". When it is (soon) Afd-ed for lack of notability, I will ask that it be redirected to Misplaced Pages.org. I am certainly verifiable! Then I will be able to list my pseudonym in articles, dabs, etc. Great! Student7 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes? Have you been covered by at least one independent reliable source? Diego (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me try something more realistic. A local high school wins the (large) state 3A championship. State newspapers cover this and maybe even list the players, who are "recognized" at several events. I start a one line stub article on each player, which are then each Afd-ed and "redirected" to the high school. This gets a bit complicated since I have two "Jim Smiths." I guess it would be "Jim Smith (high school tailback)" and "Jim Smith (high school right guard)." Would this be independent and reliable enough? BTW, none of them go on to play professionally.

Since Wiki-entertainment articles in the encyclopedia are quite nearly out of control, I suggest that this be taken seriously. You could literally get a million redirects out of this.

And, BTW, since when does a redirect have to have a "independent reliable source?" I don't notice this on any redirect! Student7 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we'd not list them.

Yes, they seem to be the same issue - why redirect schools but not include these athletes. There is a fuzzy separation line, but part of that is the idea of permanence and importance. Schools have much longer "lifetimes" than the students within them and the school itself is typically a critical part of the education system within the community it serves. A school athlete is just that, and falls, broadly read, into the idea of BLP1E as well as the concept of WP:ROUTINE. We also have the fact that the set of all elementary schools is pretty much a fixed size - growing and shrinking a small fraction each year - while the idea of school athletes is unbounded. I can't suggest any further rules that say when we split them, as I would think anything else is based on what consensus deems appropriate; consensus has always been in favor of schools, but why not other businesses or places like churches? It is likely that schools are government-recognized, and would be the type of things noted in a gazetteer, compared to other businesses or the like. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't need verifiability to create a redirect, but you need it to ask that an AfD is closed with a merge instead of a total deletion. There, that's why you can't have your Student7 redirect through the process you described. As for the players, if they are described in the Misplaced Pages article for the local school of course they could have redirects to that definition - as long as you have enough material to include them per WP:DUE; redirects are created to help people find information available at Misplaced Pages. Diego (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there avenues to "notability" not mentioned in this guideline?

It seems that there are articles on WP that do not readily fall under the provisions of this policy. For example, the various stand-alone articles governing state organizations of the Democratic Party do not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:Notability. Can someone explain whether there is a way to include these articles under the Notability policy? Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat similarly, the stand-alone articles listing US Attorney offices contain sources describing origination of these offices, but that hardly seems to satisfy a requirement for notability, as origination in itself is a minor indication of the notability of the organization. I don't suggest removal of these articles, but elaboration of the policy WP:Notability to explicitly include them. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example is Federal government of the United States, which refers entirely to primary sources, and so is not notable according to WP:Notability. One might ask whether the same kind of article could not be applied to any government, referring perhaps to translations of primary documents. By extension, the same criteria (if they can indeed be specified at all) could be applied to major organizations, including the structure of the United Nations, the structure of large corporations and, indeed, the structure of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Brews ohare. Both examples you give above are not about Articles, but embedded lists within an article. Notability is a guideline that helps us determine whether or not an Article on a subject should be included in the encyclopedia. Notability is not a requirement for inclusion of content within a notable article. That is covered by WP:Verifiability. If the entries on the list of state democratic parties cannot be verified, then they should be not there, but they do not have to demonstrate notability to be included in the notable article Democratic Party United States. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Cline: That is not the case. I have provided links to lists, but these lists are themselves lists of links to actual WP articles. Brews ohare (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Brews, indeed yes you did. You provided links to embedded lists within a notable article. What is your question then? An embedded list within an article, regardless of what it contains (blue links, red links, no links) has zero burden of notability? On the other hand, entries in an embedded list (and all content for that matter) has the burden of verifiability to be included in the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:Source list and note that notability isn't mentioned at all in this element of the list guideline. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: I'll refer you to the following, for example:

Alabama Democratic Party, Alaska Democratic Party, ..., Wyoming Democratic Party

U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,..., United States District Court for the District of Wyoming

Brews ohare (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Brews, your question is much clearer now. It is not about the notability of the embedded lists you linked in your question, but the notability of the individual articles. I would submit that indeed, each article you list should demonstrate notability via the standard method--there has been significant discussion of the subject in at least two reliable secondary sources. Each one of the individual articles you cite above should be required to meet that standard. Whether they do or not, that's a different question. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: In my mind, there is really no doubt that these articles should be here on WP. I don't think the present discussion on WP:Notability is really applicable to such articles, and their notability should be capable of being established by different means. For example, if an organization can itself be established as notable, then a description of its structure, a list of its officers, and so forth should be notable ipso facto without further justification, and an appeal to the primary sources provided by the organization itself is the best kind of support for assertions of this nature. Of course, discussion evaluating the impact of the organization, assessing its value, comparing it with other organizations, and so forth, are a separate matter and would require secondary sources as is, in fact, well-described already in WP:Notability. How do you regard this suggestion for modification of WP:Notability? Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Brews, in your Federal government of the United States example, you specifically say the article is not notable: Another example is Federal government of the United States, which refers entirely to primary sources, and so is not notable according to WP:Notability. It is an interesting example and well placed for the real lessons of this discussion. Do you believe that there are no significant discussions of the U.S. Federal Government in reliable secondary sources? Of course not, they just aren't listed in the article. That's really sort of a technical violation of sorts. Don't automatically confuse the absence of references within an article with the absence of notability. There may be a connection, but it doesn't mean something is automatically non-notable. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: Here also, although, as you say, secondary sources might be out there, in my mind they are not necessary to establish notability. This article is about the structure of the government, and reference to primary sources to establish that structure is the best support possible. Inasmuch as one can hardly doubt that the organization is notable, so also is its structure, ipso facto, with no need for further evidence of notability. WP:Notability should be changed to explicitly allow such articles, I'd say. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To go a step further, secondary sources for articles that are purely descriptive, like these, add nothing to the notability of the article. Containing only facts, and not interpretation or opinion or evaluation, the secondary source is used only to repeat what is already in the primary source citing the primary source, an entirely useless and circular appeal to the secondary source. There is no point in quoting "A says B, see primary source P" when one can say simply "B applies, see P." Brews ohare (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that any attempt to create a different notability standard for a different class of article is really problematic, especially when members of that class are most likely notable under the current standard. It opens the door to endless arguments as to what are the boundaries of the class. We already have endless discussions on the reliability and primary/secondary nature of individual sources. Adding a new standard for a different class will just exacerbate that, not improve it. You ought to dig through the discussions we've all participated in about Inheritant Notability of certain kinds of articles. Everytime, we have those discussions we say no to it, because it creates more problems than it solves. We have a standard and it should apply equally to all classes of articles. It has served us well for 11 years and counting. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: That's a judgment call. I've seen many pieces of code with confusing work-arounds nobody wants to change for cleaner code because they think it means trouble. However, I'd classify the change I'm recommending as fixing a bug, and so not to be ducked. Brews ohare (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a particular article does not adequately demonstrate why it's topic is notable (through citing secondary sources) is a flaw with that particular article... not a flaw with the guideline. The question is: can we find secondary sources to support those articles? If the answer to that question is, "Yes"... then the solution is to FIXTHEPROBLEM by adding citations. If you can not do this yourself, tag the article so that others will do so. If the answer to the question is, "No"... then the solution is to FIXTHEPROBLEM by deleting the article. Again, the flaw is with the specific article, not the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: There is no need for these articles to find secondary sources: nothing they say goes beyond the simple facts best supported through a primary source. If a secondary source describes organizational details, it will support its statements with a primary source, just as the WP article already does. Notability of the organizational description is supplied by the notability of the organization itself, and requires no further support. That is what WP:Notability should say. Brews ohare (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Brews - To your last point which I missed via an edit conflict and the intervention of an old nemesis. You must ask yourself this question? Why is the article Federal government of the United States considered notable and thus included in the encyclopedia by the WP community? There is only one answer to this question: The Federal government of the United States has received significant coverage in at least two reliable secondary sources. Ipso Facto as you say above, because of that it is notable by WP standards. You cannot confuse the content of an article and the sources used to verify that content with the burden of notability. They are two distinct elements of our WP process. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nemesis? perhaps... old? Nah. We just met. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Purely metaphorical and spur of the moment lapse of common decency. I am however confident that you are older than some and younger than others, but I may be wrong. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike: Maybe the distinction could be drawn differently: It is not necessary to establish notability for an article outlining the structure of an organization if and provided that the organization can be established as notable. That shifts the question to one of: "How do we establish an organization is notable?" and that is where the notability issue belongs for this type of strictly descriptive article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree... an organization may or may not be notable... it is extremely rare for its structure to be notable. Interesting, perhaps... worthy of being discussed as part of an article about the organization? frequently... But notable enough for its own article? Nope. In the rare cases where an organization's structure might be notable, there will be secondary sources that discuss that structure which we can use to demonstrate that notability. If no such sources exist, then we can not call it notable. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not notable, huh? Most countries think their structure is their sine qua non, a "government of laws not men" (Massachusetts Constitution, Bill of Rights, article 30 (1780)), to quote one for example. Companies aren't much different. Brews ohare (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is why notability requires independent sources to show that other people think that is important, and that we aren't resting on a self-assurance claim. Plus, consider how many more people a government's structure is likely to affect (in the millions) compared to a company's structure. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly... Notability is not the same as importance. Notability is determined by having other people (especially reliable, independent, secondary sources) discuss the topic... the more that such sources discuss it, the more notable we say it is. The less they discuss it, the less notable we can say it is. The structure of an organization (even a government) may be vital and important, affecting the lives of millions... but if no reliable, independent, secondary sources talk about it, we can't say it is notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, its great to see two old "nemeses" reach agreement. But about what exactly? Rather than consider the possibility that notability could be established by various means, the agreement is that notability is "what people talk about" and is quite separate from "importance". Well folks, IMO that position really just means that the status quo is so important to you all that any nonsense can be resorted to in its support. Perhaps fortunately, WP is replete with articles that do not satisfy the present notability requirements. So perhaps the de facto situation on WP is wiser than the de jure version, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's more than 3 million articles, so we're not going to be able to catch every article that comes along and may only be supported by primary sources; once we see one, its usually taken to AFD which is the only place where this is then checked. The point here is that AFD supports what we have said about this type of sourcing, so that's what the consensus is. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Masem: So you now join in, although earlier on WP:OR you suggested that notability need not apply to some articles, and that it could be established for some articles by means other than secondary sources. These are, in fact, reasonable positions, and fortunately WP employs them even though its policies and you all do not.

There is nothing wrong with the articles I've brought up here that do not satisfy notability as it is written. The suggestion that they all should go to AFD is silly. Instead, notability should be rewritten to allow them. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At OR, I said the exception is for navigational pages like disambiguation. That's still true here. The problem is that you wanted to include articles that no one else would call as "navigation pages" into this broad category of "familiarization pages" and claim notability exceptions for that. That's what we've been trying to tell you does not follow from OR, N, Summary Style and a bunch of other pages.

Also, a point must be made clear: when you say "notability as written", that's not correct. Yes, evidence of notability should be in the article to start with (it avoids the issue altogether), but following the lead of WP:V, we don't require that as long as sources that do establish notability have been identified on the talk page or a similar venue (eg a "keep" AFD result). Yes, if you know them and leave them out, that needs to be fixed during the general improvement of the article, but not including them as inline sources is not a reason to delete. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Masem: Yes, the objective is to change WP:Notability so articles like those linked at US Attorney offices and governing state organizations of the Democratic Party and the article Federal government of the United States satisfy the policy. Such a change is viewed with unease by Mike, and with horror by Blueboar.

The response to this proposal has taken a few forms, but all amount to different ways to duck the issue. To take it head-on seems to be difficult. Yet, all that is needed is to state that articles of a purely descriptive nature fall into a category separate from articles expressing opinion, assessment, interpretation, comparisons and so forth. As purely descriptive, they need only primary sources (although secondary sources are possible too). Precautions are needed to avoid uninteresting compilations, but that doesn't seem an insuperable task. Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, some of those articles you're linking as examples satisfy notability requirements. I can't say all, but certainly Federal government of the United States.

Here's the thing, you're proposing that we want to including these purely descriptive, primary-sourced-only articles. That's understood, and you recognize the line about indiscriminate information, so you understand the problems with these if we allow them unchecked. So we need a line drawn. The line that makes the most sense and fair across the board (for all fields) is that of notability. If there has been some notice of the primary-sourced information by an independent reliable source, then that gives us some justification for including it in detail. If not, then it's just interesting to those directly connected to the topic, and not appropriate for an in-depth article on Misplaced Pages. It may be a harsh line but it is also the most objective and fairest across all fields. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Masem: I believe these remarks of yours do address the issue raised, a departure from earlier discussion by others. Your recommendation as I understand it is that although one can readily distinguish purely descriptive material from other articles, and although it is plain that purely descriptive material requires only primary sources, the unfortunate fact is that it is beyond our capacity to come up with criteria that would avoid uninteresting compilations. Therefore, one must adopt a less-than-perfect approach to the matter, and hope that a work-around using the present WP:Notability will do, even though it is a kludge. Brews ohare (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We're a tertiary source - we are meant to summarize information. That means that information that is "purely descriptive" either needs to be sourced to secondary sources to show why it is important, or otherwise we need to summarize it within the context of a larger article. Short and simple. We cannot make allowances where no secondary sources do not exist. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Establishing the relationship with the GNG and the SNGs

Bringing this over from a discussion at WT:ORG...

While I believe that unwritten consensus supports this point of view, I think we need to verbally state it in WP:N. That view being composed of two thoughts:

• Notability is the minimum requirement for a topic to have a stand-alone article. (which we already sorta say, but important to the following statement)
• Sub-notability guidelines provide alternative means of showing that a topic will likely meet the GNG, and thus be presumed notable. Commonly this is shown through specific criteria that assures that the sourcing required for the GNG either already exists but may be difficult to locate or collect, or has a very high likelihood of being generated due to the circumstances of the criteria.

A possible third:

• In general, sub-notability guidelines are alternatives to the GNG; a topic failing a sub-notability guideline may still meet the GNG and thus be presumed notable. In select cases, sub-notability and Wikiproject specific guidelines may recommend against creating a stand-alone article for a topic that otherwise is presumed notable if coverage of that topic is better described along with topics, or if there is a possibility of indiscriminate coverage due to the nature of the topic's field.

A section outlining this would help make it clear the purpose the SNGs serve and how they should be developed. None with goes against the current set of SNGs that we have (eg I believe this represents consensus), but it would help when people try to use an SNG improperly to deny a GNG-meeting topic of having an article, or proposing SNG criteria that won't ever necessarily meet the GNG. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Masem: Can you spell out these acronyms and maybe provide some links to where they are identified? Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

GNG is the General Notability Guideline, spelled out WP:GNG. SNG is "Sub-notability guideline", but the acronym isn't spelled out in long-term form on any page, though I believe this proposed section would be the adequate target for it. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I see also that the talk page you have referred to is for the guideline Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies), a single page in an entire category of guidelines I was completely unaware of. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that all the articles listed at Category:Wikipedia_notability with the exception of WP:Notability itself are "sub-notability guidelines"? Brews ohare (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They are officially called "Notability Subject-specific guidelines". They aren't "sub" since they aren't under anything, but separate entities. Dream Focus 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• You can be notable by either the meeting the General Notability Guideline OR any of the secondary guidelines. They were created because some notable topics do not get mainstream coverage like famous people and other popular culture items do. WP:SCHOLAR shows that if someone's work is cited by peers, such as in college level textbooks or whatnot, then they are notable for their work in their fields, even without anyone writing any interviews or historical pages about them. WP:ARTIST shows that if someone has designed notable monuments or has their worked featured in permanent collections of notable museums, then they are a notable person. There are a lot of things that should clearly be in a serious online encyclopedia, which will NEVER get mainstream media coverage. Misplaced Pages:Notability article reads: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Misplaced Pages is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. I think that's pretty clear already. Dream Focus 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that the SNGs like what you list are to help topics that otherwise ought to be including in an encyclopedia that lack the typical, easy-to-search-and-locate, online resources that other topics have. However, even in the cases you describe above of the specific examples, those are framed to point to what others have likely considered about the person at hand, and really are saying that "hey, there's likely secondary sources out there, but its going to take some work and discrimination and time and effort to locate, so for now, we're presuming notability". This is about the selection of SNG criteria to make sure it's towards the minds-eye of thinking about if secondary sources likely exist. This also is meant to prevent creating criteria that do not have a strong chance of having secondary source coverages for all cases - e.g. "any redhead is presumed notable". --MASEM (t) 19:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As a reader of Notability that never noticed this point, I have formatted Notability to break out this important point and make it more obvious. Brews ohare (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What would be the reaction to drafting an SSG along these lines:

WP:Notability (Descriptive articles): A descriptive article is one that includes no opinion, evaluation, comparison, or interpretation of the material it contains, but is restricted to nothing more than guidance to identify the content of primary sources. Potential examples are guidance to governmental agencies including the governing legislation and present and previous officers, guidance to legal documents governing significant issues, and so forth. All guidance is of the form of aiding identification of the relevant sources, not an appraisal of them. A descriptive article is allowed on WP provided it is notable, which is to say, not an uninteresting compilation. Criteria determining notability of such descriptive articles are:

and so forth. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly object to such a SNG... again, notability is about whether a specific topic is notable. We can not say that an entire class of article is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, restriction to a topic is understood and could be made emphatic. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the idea that coverage does not need to be from mainstream (read "popular") sources, and so agree with the caveat in WP:SCHOLAR... But we do need coverage. Thus, I have more of a problem with WP:ARTIST saying "if someone has designed notable monuments or has their worked featured in permanent collections of notable museums, then they are a notable person." Notability is all about having people actually notice (ie comment upon) what the subject has done. Yes, it is highly likely that a sculptor who designed a notable monument, or an artist who is featured in the permanent collection will be notable... but likelihood is not the same as fact. After all, there are many great (notable) works of art that were created by complete unknowns. Don't we need some sort of written evidence to "demonstrate" notability? Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, its basically common sense. You are notable for your accomplishments, not because you agreed to do interviews, or whatnot. Many things get reviewed if they are from a company that buys at a lot of advertisement in the newspaper or magazine reviewing it. Relying on coverage isn't really a good idea. Dream Focus 18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: I'd say that if the work of art satisfies the criteria provided it is notable and ipso facto so is the artist. You don't have to have "chatter" about yourself personally to be notable, and it doesn't make you notable just because you have a following on Facebook. Brews ohare (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The relationship betwen GNG's and SNG's has always been unclear. I thought that wp:notability explicitly clarified this by saying the meeting a SNG qualifies as meeting GNG, but now I don't see it in there. And, even with that, the reverse was not covered, (oi.e. that the SNG can be ignored if GNG is met. The general consensus seems to lean towards sayign it's an "or" situaiton where meeting one or the other is sufficient. But it is VERY common for someone to say that whichever criteria is more stringent applies, or that an articles must statisy BOTH GNG and the SNG to survive. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguments pop up rarely in AFDs, and when they do the overwhelming majority of editors see it as an either/or situation. Dream Focus 18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: You are notable for your accomplishments ....I completely disagree with this. You are notable because people have taken note of you. You might do all sorts of wonderful things, but if no one notes that you did them, then you are NOT notable. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Explicitly, I am stating that it is still an "or" situation. You either need to meet the GNG or an SNG. My point in this statement is not towards the specific notability of any topic, but to understand that SNGs are developed, as Dream Focus says, to help topics where easily-discovered traditional coverage is not immediately accessible by granting them presumed notability for a stand-alone article. We expect that the GNG can eventually be shown given enough time and resources to locate all such sources, but we don't require that a topic that meets the SNG to meet the GNG as well.

That said, the caveat in this is that while a topic may meet a SNG, if it starts becoming clear after a long amount of time that there are no sources to establish notability given that serious effort has been made, then perhaps that presumption is wrong. That's why it is important to highlight that notability is always a presumption. Say an SNG says a person is notable for winning an award, so the article is created for that person. If after several years, no sources can be found (and it is a legitimate good faith effort to find sources), then it is not unreasonably to send the article to AFD or merge to a larger topic. We hope that SNGs are developed to avoid this scenario, and thus why it is important that SNG criteria are aimed towards ultimately finding GNG sources. How long do they have? Exactly what's prescribed by WP:DEADLINE (effectively, indefinitely), and has much as consensus allows -meaning it could stay forever, or until someone starts an AFD and gain consensus that it no longer is appropriate (which I would definitely say is an extreme rarity, but possible in the larger scheme of things) --MASEM (t) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another interaction issue which your comment does not cover. That is where the SNG is more stringent than GNG. A few examples:

• Musicians SNG which gets interpreted to exclude certain sources (e.g. university publications) from being used to satisfy GNG.
• No expert here, but I think that the SNG for academics / professors is more stringent that GNG and gets applied. Possibly acknowledging that in that publishing-heavy arena the ratio of publishing to real world notability is much higher than in other fields.
• I just weighed in on one AFD where some delete comments say that the subject needs to meet requirements in addition to GNG, based on what the SNG appears to say.

North8000 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On the third point, there is a lot of people that mis-read the SNG and believe its GNG + SNG coverage. I even have an article at AFD that was nominated for not meeting the exact SNG despite meeting the GNG. That's miscommunication and needs to be clearer. (if anything that RFC on WP:N about 3-4 years ago showed it was definitely "or", not "and").

On the first and second point, that's what my third point tries to point out; that perhaps for their field, the GNG alone would allow for indiscriminate coverage of a large number of topics. If consensus agrees that for this field, there needs to be more than the GNG, that's fine, but that type of outlining is the exception for SNGs, not the rule. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Help requested

I'd like some help to write a notability guideline. Please see User:Brews ohare/WP:Notability (Descriptive articles) and comment if you can. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)