Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:19, 28 March 2008

• 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, 82Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives
2005–Sep 2006 (related to page now moved to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Arguments) Sep–Oct 2006 Oct–Nov 2006 18–25 Nov 2006 Nov 2006–Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006–Jan 2007 Jan 2007–Feb 2007 Feb 2007 March 2007 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

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

Eh? Notability is (still) a guideline?

Notability was a first shot at preventing people from wasting their time on things that were too trivial to easily be checked. I thought it could be entirely replaced by verifiability and reliable sources by now.

The page says that notability criteria should be objective, but imho notability itself has always been a fairly subjective subject.

Finally, I simply don't like guidelines that are made solely to serve some XFD process. (Imagine if Esperanza or AMA had created guidelines... there'd be an outcry!)

Have people already been phasing out the use of Notability as a criterion?

Perhaps we can replace the guidline with just "2 reliable sources" and merge that with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I'm asking here first, because redirects are annoying :-P

Because notability is more than just sourcing; the "significant coverage" part is important there as well as "secondary" sources, and additionally it is subjective, and that subjectively needs to be described in a guideline approach; merging it with RS would leave RS doing a lot more than just describing reliable sources and would complicate it there. Mind you, I see people that would like to have absolutely no notability guideline in place at all, while others want it to be policy. I also don't see notability meant solely to serve AfD: it is meant to help people know what is needed in articles before their creation or to correct it when existing articles lack it, though it also serves to keep back the tide of new pages covering non-encyclopedic elements as well that newer editors tend to create when they are unaware of guidelines and policy. --MASEM 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So in summary, not only is it unnecessary, subjective, and essentially random, it also bites newbies. Like that didn't hit the newspapers before. This situation is so bad that it actually costs us donations and editors.

It doesn't have to be this way. Misplaced Pages is not paper has been a dead letter for long enough. Time for us to start enforcing it again? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We asked ArbCom to take a look at a related situation; they threw up their hands and basically said it's a real mess. Nifboy (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Way cool! They even quoted "not paper!" :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) <smug look> but of course, they would</smug look> (what's the point of cool quotes like that if you can't be smug about 'em? ;-) )

Yes the situation is bad. WP:N is a black hole, so dense that no article can escape past the event horizon. --Pixelface (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See above about the economist article about the battle for WP's soul. We could make notability policy, or we could abolish it, but either direction is a battlefield. What we need to do it realize that notability should not meant deletion - I've been tuning and working on a WP:FICT that compromises both sides, with heavy emphasis that AfD should be the absolute last step in the process. Warning newbies that their articles lack notability and other areas is much much better than CSD/AfD the articles off the bat. --MASEM 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good first step. It seems like an attainable compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If "notability should not mean deletion" then it should be removed from WP:DEL#REASON. The mention of WP:N in that policy basically turns this mixed-up guideline into policy. --Pixelface (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a failure to assert notability is a speedy deletion criteria as well. Vassyana (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In CSD, notability can only be used on articles types that typically results in the generation of self-advertisements without additional notability: people, musical groups, businesses, and web sites/software. From what I've seen during cleanup of CAT:CSD, this CSD criteria is necessary for this specific purpose, otherwise every random joe would create a page to talk about themselves. Any other topic has to go through the longer term PROD or AFD process if notability isn't demonstrated. --MASEM 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability shouldn't mean deletion, but that doesn't mean we don't remove the reason to delete articles due to lack of notability. What this means is that we should be focusing on letting page editors know a topic is found to be non-notable and giving them time to correct it, or if they can't, means to move the coverage of the topic into a larger, more notable aspect. Ideally, editors will work harmoniously with the ones concerned about notability, but we know this is not the case. There are still times that it may be necessary to take a disputed non-notable article to AfD if no other home for the content can be found, it is just that this should be the last step in the process after all other avenues of retaining at least some portion of the article topic content have been found. --MASEM 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I could support Kim in this as a long-term goal, but in practice notability is substantially ingrained in WP and removing it now would be an overwhelming battle as it was last year. We should look at what is possible rather than what is perfect in the shorter-term and strive for perfection over time. My concern is less with the core here at WP:N, but the proliferation of redundant and contradictory permutations of BIO, ORG, PROF, etc. And the perpetual proposals for special cases. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  <grin> I thought you might like the idea. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to affect the merger of Academics with BIO

Absent strong objections at the talk page for WP:Academics I think that it is time to merge this page into BIO. The better parts of this process have been incorporated into BIO for some time and this is now just a redundant page. Perhaps further ideas in clarification of BIO could be included in an essay. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there has been considerable discussion on that page, some of it possibly classifiable as "strong opposition". Those interested who have not yet commented are encouraged to read the arguments on both sides and join the discussion. DGG (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant definition

One of the bullets under General notability guidelines begins "'sources,' defined on Misplaced Pages as secondary sources...." I don't know what that means. Also, refuse recognize a guideline that purports to define anything for all of Misplaced Pages. (Yes, that means that I find that so arrogant that I do not recognize this guideline at all.) --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What that means is to demonstrate notability you need sources that are published by a third party that has an editorial board and a reputation for fact-checking. There are other kinds of sources, such as official documents, (sometimes)self-published material, fiction, which we can cite in articles but they don't give the subject a claim to notability. See WP:PSTS. Though I would like to argue that tertiary sources, such as textbooks, atlases, and other encyclopedias, are another possible way to argue notability, and because there is a debate over the definition of "secondary source" perhaps this guideline should use a different wording. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding the phrase "third party" at all costs. A reputation for independence and fair play is much more important than the complex web of corporate ownership and government oversight that can make it a major reasearch project to decide who is, or isn't, a third party. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a third-party (independent source), they would rarely (at best) have a "reputation for independence", no? Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability: Belief Systems

I am somewhat new to WP so if this has been discussed before please point me in the right direction to see the history. I have been reading quite a bit on notability issues here at WP but I have not yet seen anything that addresses the following:

I believe a waiver of the {{Primarysources}} tag may be in order for articles which describe the details and nature of any modern school of thought or belief systems. Published experts who would write on such matters would most likely be either proponents or opponents to such teachings.

For example: The WP article on Unity, the largest of the New Thought denominations is currently tagged with {{Primarysources}}. This is a denomination that has tens of thousands of congregants and is quite controversial (ergo notable) among some sects of Christianity ... yet it raises no academic or journalistic red flags so the only published sources on the teachings of the church are all primary sources either for or against those teachings.

Another example might be the New Thought denomination called Divine Science which has already fallen to the WP:NN issue. This denomination has significant historical context within New Thought seminaries due to one of its widely published authors, Joseph Murphy.

Maybe what we need is a new tag, something like:

Primary Sources Waiver for Belief System Description

"Readers are advised this article/section describes a belief system and uses only primary source material which cannot be considered objective. This article/section is allowed under a specific exception to the WP policy requiring secondary and tertiary sources, provided the article is accurate to it's sources and maintains a NPOV." See WP:PSTS for more information.

Is this a good idea or if not why not, and how would one go about proposing creation of a new policy and tag indicating such a waiver? Low Sea (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - why can there be no secondary sources about these beliefs? Neutral experts might cover both points of view in a survey. (In fact, if such neutral sources do not exist, that's rather a hint towards non-notability of the topic.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary or (the prefered) tertiary source is essentially going to be one of three types of document: a journalistic news article, an academic research paper, or a significant commercial publication. My opinion (and it is only an opinion ... which is why I have put it here for discussion) is that the WP:PSTS policy, while being a good general guideline to reduce flotsam, needs a workable exception policy because otherwise subjects can only be considered notable if they somehow have succeeded in pleasing a news editor, an academic advisor, or a publishing executive. This creates a fairly strong bias towards economically viable documentation rather than neutral facts. When dealing with modern day belief systems it may be extremely difficult to find unbiased publications that describe the system details, and even harder to find detailed descriptions of said systems which are written by 2nd or 3rd party sources. Note that I said "may" ... sometimes you can find such references, but generally you cannot.

In a real encyclopedia entries sometimes exist which may not be notable in their own right ... but are appropriate because they are relevant to other notable topics. In WP these articles may be nothing more than a stub article or merely a single paragraph/section in a larger article but they still need to be there to make the larger article "comprehensive" (aka "encyclopedic").

The {{Primarysources}} template is garbage and should be deleted. Although there are issues surrounding relying only on primary sources, it is not possible to put an adequate summary of the situation in a little box. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS does not prohibit the use of primary sources. The restriction you are referring to is purely a matter of the notability and verifiability rules. Verifiability states that is there are no reliable third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on the topic. Notability requires significant coverage in reputable sources that are independent of the subject. Essentially, it all comes down to creating a circumstance where complete encyclopedic articles can be created while adhering to the wiki NPOV without engaging in original research. In terms of cost-benefit, a radical liberalization of such standards is (in my own view) far more likely to create huge swaths of promotional vehicles and original research than it is useful and encyclopedic articles. Nature of the beast and man, and all that. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Third party" and "independent of the subject" constitute terrible wording. If I could get away with it, I'd rip those phrases out of the policies and guidelines immediately. I've discussed it on the talk pages of WP:V and WP:N in the past. The editors that dominate those pages think "third party" really means impartial, and does not refer to any financial connection between the publisher or author and the subject matter. Also they think it's obvious that "independent of the subject" only applies when the subject is some kind of person or organization that can have a conflict-of-interest; it doesn't apply to abstract subjects such as general relativity or algebra. Algebra isn't capable of having a conflict-of-interest. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What wording would you suggest to cover the intent without the current clumsy phrasing? Vassyana (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe notability should be established through coverage in reliable sources where either the author or the publisher are impartial; it is not necessary that both the author and publisher be impartial. As an alternative, the topic could be covered by several partial reliable sources which have opposing points of view. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if an otherwise impartial and well-respected historian were published by a religious publisher, of some particular bias, the source would remain acceptable? Or, on the other side, if a partisan writer were published by a well-respected impartial university press, that would also be considered acceptable? On the latter point, do they necessarily have to be "opposing" views? Would simply a requirement for a "spectrum" or "myriad" of views seem appropriate? Unless I am misunderstanding, the focus should be on a breadth of coverage, rather than balanced presentation. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The publisher touches the text last, so the publiser be reliable, so that we can be sure the views of the author have been fairly presented. A biased unreliable publisher might quote an impartial reliable author out of context. A spectrum of views would be good, but a myriad of views could all be from about the same point of view. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many "respectable" publishers but there is no such thing as an "unbiased" publisher ... publishing is a business and ultimately biased by financial considerations. The marketability of a book's contents drive the decisions of even the most respected publishers. Some good and notable books never get published because there simply is no substantial market for them, some sections are edited or deleted to please the buying public. Low Sea (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Troublesome loophole

In the lead, there is this troublesome sentence:

'If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable.'

True, a poorly written stub can still be notable. But ultimately, the notability must come from secondary sources. So, if those cannot be shown, then the topic / article cannot be shown to be notable except by original research. I don't advocate deleting stub / poorly written articles. I do advocate deleting topics that are not and cannot be sourced.

I advocate removing the sentence as it requires the community to prove a negative which is an impossible standard. Either the topic / article states why it is notable through reference to secondary sources or it doesn't: if it doesn't, then it is de facto not notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement is not a loophole, but rather an important clarification. There is a difference between "cannot be sourced" and "is not presently sourced", and we should not make judgements about the notability of a topic based on the present state of an article. While it is impossibly to prove non-notability and the burden of proof should and does rest with those who seek to retain the article, showing that coverage exists is enough to prove notability; the added step of adding sources to the article, while desirable, is not needed to prove notability. Black Falcon 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First let me say I do not recognize this guideline due to rotten wording. Setting that aside, Wassupwestcoast said "But ultimately, the notability must come from secondary sources." No, that's wrong. If reliable independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of a topic, that is conclusive proof that the topic is notable, but the reverse does not follow. It is possible to prove a topic is notable through coverage by primary sources if they are used appropriately; the Reliable sources guideline allows articles based only on primary sources in some instances. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I am not sure how this can be denied. An article can be deleted at AfD if the subject is notable, but no reliable secondary sources can be found, so this is not really a loophole. _(1 == 2) 19:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Until's statement. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So you think the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? _(1 == 2) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe "an article can be deleted at AfD if the subject is notable, but no reliabel secondary sources can be found". No such reason is listed at WP:DEL#REASON. It does refer to this guideline, but this guideline doesn't say that either. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", sounds like a match to me. _(1 == 2) 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you have fallen for the widespread misconception that primary sources are unreliable. This is false. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not so apparent, primary sources are fine for some data, but they are not a basis for an article. It is through my experience in both debating and closing AfD's that I assure you we do delete articles for the reason of not having secondary reliable sources, even if the subject is itself notable. _(1 == 2) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the issue is not what type of sourcing is needed to prove notability, but rather whether the article needs to cite sources in order for the topic to be considered notable. Black Falcon 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we delete articles for merely not having RSs we shouldnt be. We delete articles because they can be shown not to be sourceable , not merely currently unsourced. Someone has to have made a good faith search for sources and failed to find them. The usual situation leading to appropriate deletion for lack of sourcing is that someone responsible tries to find sources, finds the best they can, puts them forward, and they are considered inadequate. That's how you do show absence--you look by appropriate means in appropriate places, and fail to find--it doesnt prove absence, but the failure of a proper search considering all the possibilities does show it pretty well, if the article is such that the search would have found it. eg. absence of google hits is significant for a claimed internet meme, absence of book reviews for a work of fiction, absence of newspaper articles about a politician. DGG (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree DGG but the problem is that we have some powerful circular logic in play. An article should not be deleted solely on issue of notability for lack of reliable sources but an article is not allowed to exist without verifiability, and verifiability requires reliable sources. If the absolute lynchpin for notability is secondary/tertiary sources then every other word of that guideline is absolutely meaningless fluff. Why bother having the WP:N policy at all?!? I am somewhat tempted to take WP:N to AfD on grounds of redundancy with WP:V and see what fun that creates. :)

What is interesting to note however is the following tiny bit of text burried inside WP:N...

Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

The way I read this is that a non-notable subject may be a section within a notable article. Of course then you again get to deal with the circular logic problems but it seems that you might be able to use only reliable primary sources in such a section to satisfy verifiability. Could this be the reason for needing WP:N -- to differentiate between criteria for stand-alone articles versus sub-articles? Low Sea (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Two key things to remember: notability is a concept applied at the topic level, while verification is applied at the article level. A topic may consist of one main article and a handful of spinouts; as long as notability is demonstrated in the main article and with the caveat that the spinouts are written as spinouts, then notability's concept is upheld; this I see as an extension of "notability does not limit article content". Verification means that we obviously need sources in each individual article, even if that means we are resorting to primary sources in the spinouts. Verification is non-negotiable as a WP pillar. N and V are two very different beasts, even though they share many concepts alike; at worst, one can argue that N helps to support the verification goal of WP by requiring sources for any topic that is covered.

The other aspect is that people need to remember that notability is a inclusion guideline for WP, but it is not the inclusion guideline for WP (though used more than 99% of the time to determine what should be included). Unfortunately, we don't list out what other inclusion guidelines we have, but that's part of what the statement that started this section implies. And again, with notability being a guideline , there are implied exceptions to it as well.

What unfortunately I think has happened is that many newer editors see WP:N as being part of WP's deletion policy, which it strictly is not true; it is a possible reason for deletion, but as a guideline, there's ways around it, and non-notable content does not always have to be deleted as there are usually ways to incorporate some aspects of it within a larger, notable topic (with WP:IINFO kept in mind). It's a mindset issue, and one we need to ween editors off of. --MASEM 12:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wassupwestcoast, I added that to the lead to clarify an important point. Many editors look at the current state of the article to determine notability. Up until December 7, 2007, the Human skeleton article had no citations. Does that mean the human skeleton is not notable? No, it doesn't. It means the article needs improvement. The Skeleton article still has no citations to this day. Does that mean that skeletons are not notable? No, it doesn't. It means the article has no citations. Citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is one way of suggesting notability, but I certainly don't think it's the only way. --Pixelface (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do people come to Misplaced Pages ?

I have been giving a lot of thought and review to the subject of WP:Notability (WP:N) and come to a rather radical new perspective on the subject: "Notability may need to be defined and/or qualified, at least to some degree, by the informational needs of the readers."

In trying to find solutions to my issue of WP:N versus details for subjective belief systems (see the section above) I perused a lot of the WP internal policies, guidelines, discussions, memoranda and essays on content requirements. In the process I noticed that many of the editors here may have developed a mild case of IvoryTower-itis -- that is they appear to have developed a tendency to forget about the end-users of their research efforts. It may sound cold considering that every editor here is a human being (if you ignore the bots) but I begin to wonder if we haven't forgotten about the people side of the equation -- "people" in this case refering to those non-editor users who come to Misplaced Pages to simply read the information collected here.

This is not a rant or flame, merely an observation and my admittedly subjective interpretation. To test if this interpretation is accurate I propose the following question: When was the last time you asked yourself: "Why do people come to Misplaced Pages?"

I remember reading somewhere in those guidelines and policies that when trying to determine if an article is appropriate for creation at WP we should think about the question "Would you find this article in a printed encyclopedia?" . Thinking about that question led me to wonder about matters like "How does a print encyclopedia decide what to include/exclude?" and "Why do people use encyclopedias (print or otherwise)?"

I would be curious to hear what your answers are to the above questions but since this is the WP:N talkpage let me stay on topic and bring it into focus with the following question:

Can WP:Notability be qualified in terms of what people come to Misplaced Pages looking for?

For example: If 5,000 people each month type in the same search term and find "No page with that title exists", should WP add a page to answer the people's need/desire for information even if it does not meet typical WP:N criteria? Low Sea (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is not so much, "Why do people come to Misplaced Pages?", but "What and how much reliable information can Misplaced Pages offer to its readers?", and "What should be done when (almost) no reliable information exists?" E.g compare Mythology_of_Lost#The_Monster (which still has a bit too much of OR/PLOT) with http://www.lostpedia.com/The_Monster (don't forget to check out the theory tab). Clearly, everyone wants to read up on what the Monster of Lost is all about, but that doesn't mean that wikipedia can and (should) cover all the speculation in detail. So I'd answer your last question with no, it is just a good approximation for a limit when reliable sources become scarce. I am sure the notability of non-fiction can be argued in a similar way. – sgeureka 08:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would consider this answered by saying that we would like WP to be the first, but definitely not the last, place that people come for information. By visiting WP, readers should learn a skin-deep level about a topic, and further information should be given in the numerous sources that are required by verifiability, with the emphasis on secondary sources as we cannot assume the reader is 100% familiar with the topic that solely primary sources will be that useful; thus the need for analysis and commentary provided in secondary ones. We balance this against WP:IINFO, because while we can provide a lot of skin-deep info, we should not attempt to fully describe every aspect of the topic and remove the necessity of using those additional sources. Mind you, there are people that have come to expect that "WP is cataloguing the entire compendium of human knowledge" which is of course not a goal of an encyclopedia, so we have to be aware there are reader misconceptions on the project. --MASEM 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with those above, the answer is simple: People come here for information, for knowledge, but most apply no discrimination when they use those words when railing against deletion on whatever basis, be it notability or otherwise. We hear unparsed mantras: "who does it harm to keep this information"; "isn't Misplaced Pages supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge"; "all information someone bothered to type should be retained" and a million variations. There is no filtering going on through the lens of what "encyclopedia" should and must mean even if these people know in theory that Misplaced Pages is something other than a blog or free for all site. The product we must strive for is reliable information and actual knowledge while maintaining ourselves as a tertiary source. Without reliable sourcing this is not what our readers get, though they often don't and won't ever know it. Yet, I have never once sourced an unsourced but detailed article, or seen it done by others, where it was not found that there existed entirely incorrect information. So we are attempting to give the reader what they come here for, even if it is in spite of themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that "informational needs of readers" is an improper criterion. First, there's hardly any objective criterion for that, anything you read about it is highly subjective. (Or do you really want to carry out a proper market research on Misplaced Pages reader's needs?) Second, our aim is not to fulfill "all informational needs" that readers might have. For example, readers might well need information from a phone book. While online phone books exist, we're not one, and cannot reasonably be. Readers might want to find gossip and rumour about celebrities. While there are websites where they find it, it's not what an encyclopaedia is for. Readers might want to find their classmates of old... etc.
All in all, we're not the internet at large. Misplaced Pages has a limited scope, and we need a limited scope to reasonably maintain the site. Interestingly, hardly anyone dares to define that scope precisely. But roughly, the consensus seems to be that Misplaced Pages should contain verifiable facts about notable topics from the real world. The WP:N guideline may be vague at times, but it's the best consensus we currently have. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited

WP:NOTINHERITED is often cited in AFDs, and seems to have good consensus support. I propose that we add a condensed form to this article.

Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate topics. Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either. This is not to say that subordinate topics cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Subordinate topics which meet the relevant notability guidelines are themselves notable, and some notabilty guidelines, for example books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances.

Thoughts? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, some comments please on an article

I would like some opinions on Talk:Westerplatte#Polish 1933 war proposal. I think it is notable, but an other editor apparently feels it is not. comments appreciated.--Stor stark7 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)