Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:36, 5 April 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)

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)

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)

Inheritability in WP:MUSIC is hardly in "exceptional circumstances", and the "cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia" sentence needs further clarification/development.Skomorokh 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Percy, while I agree with the general idea, I'd prefer to formulate it more in plain English. Perhaps something like this:

Notability does not directly limit article content. Some topics, however, are so large in scope and coverage that the article is split into several articles on sub-topics. In this case, the notability guideline applies to every sub-topic separately; coverage in independent sources is required for every sub-topic. Notability is, in this sense, not "inherited" from a main topic.

That avoids references to trees and classes, it seems more clear to me. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - I don't think we need to repeat WP:NNC, and we should include the not-inherited-up bit; how about:

Some topics, however, are so large in scope and coverage that they are split into several articles on sub-topics. In this case, the notability guideline applies to every sub-topic separately; coverage in independent sources is required for every sub-topic. Notability is, in this sense, not "inherited" from a main topic. Similarly, if a notable topic is a sub-topic of a wider parent topic, that does not imply that the parent topic is notable. Notability is not inherited "upwards" or "downwards".

Better? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For me it seems fine. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Skomorokh? Anyone else? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, what would people say to using WP:NNI and WP:N#INHERIT as shortcuts? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know Percy is trying to help WP, but I do have to note that at the same time he is proposing this, he is also arguing that we should not allow for non-notable spinouts on WP:FICT (an aspect strengthed by this issue), a point that, while I agree on principle is true, but that in the current editing environment, would be very detrimental to spell out currently and within a guideline.

Detrimental in what sense? If the consensus is that notability is not inherited, then the guidelines should follow that. WP:NOTINHERITED is already quoted in hundreds of deletion debates, so including it here just makes that consensus agreement clear. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this also on the fact that this goes against both WP:SS and the statement "notability does not limit article content". Spinout articles should meet all other guidelines and policies for WP articles (sourced, maybe from primary only, NOR, NPOV, etc.) but the fact that the text is contained either in the main body or a separate article, as long as that text is written as if it were included in the main article, makes little difference per these two guidelines, and having to demonstrate notability in the spinout can be seen as redundant. (Mind you, having a spinout demonstrate notability on its own certainly cannot hurt, it just cannot be a requirement). This does mean that spinouts have to be written to a specific level of detail (not very much, that is) as to retain this notation of being part of the main article. I also don't believe that there is any inherited notability that exists here nor inherent notability that the spinout must have; remember that notability is a inclusion guideline, but its not the only one. --MASEM 13:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinout articles have spinout topics; nowhere but in a disputed section of WP:FICT does it say that spinout articles are the "contents" of their parent articles. WP:NNC doesn't excuse spinouts from notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate as a general rule, because it's not either true or false in all circumstances, nor is there community consensus that it is a rule one way or the other. Furthermore, with subtopics or members of indisputably notable subjects, the question is not whether the particular element of the notable parent topic is itself notable. It's a question of what level of detail is appropriate for covering that parent topic, and how substantial that element is as a stand-alone topic. A matter for merger discussions rather than deletion. Postdlf (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be self-evident. If an article doesn't have independent notabilty, it should be deleted, regardless of anything else. NOTINHERITED is merely an example of spurious Keep arguments in AfDs in 99.9% of cases. Black Kite 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's related to an indisputably notable parent topic, but not substantial enough to merit an independent article, wouldn't the proper solution in many cases be to merge and redirect? Editorial decisions really have to be made case-by-case; it's really futile (and harmful) to try and ossify them into abstract, binding rules. Postdlf (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed addition does not forbid to merge articles. It just says that the non-notable articles should not exist. There may be several options to remove them if necessary. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is dead wrong. "Coverage in independent sources is required for every sub-topic." People will immediately start applying that to article sections, since they are "subtopics" even more than subarticles are. This is just dead wrong.--Father Goose (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They can be pointed to WP:NNC if they do. Do you think we should repeat WP:NNC in the paragraph? Perhaps we should add "This applies only to articles; Sections of articles do not have to demonstrate notability." Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's the very concept that's wrong; if there is verifiable information on a notable topic, then it shouldn't matter if that information is in the "main" article or a subarticle. If any modifications to WP:N are needed, it should be to reflect that, not to intensify the misalignment of WP:N and WP:SS (which is already causing great problems for the encyclopedia).--Father Goose (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the subarticle is the subtopic, not the topic of the parent article. If there isn't enough coverage of the subtopic, then it's inappropriate to create an independent article on it - and in fact the section which is being spun out is almost certainly too long, so WP:SS is the wrong solution to the problem of size; the section should be shortened rather than spun out. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This creates an arbitrary constraint on the level of detail Misplaced Pages can provide. By the terms you propose, information drawn from primary sources cannot be placed in spinout articles, and if it cannot be fit in a single article, it must be deleted. But this is arbitrary. It is totally disconnected from the following question: "How do we make Misplaced Pages the best it can possibly be?"

On the contrary. We make Misplaced Pages the best it can be by choosing the information we include with care. WP:PLOT places a constraint on the level of detail Misplaced Pages can provide, and WP:N should reflect that policy. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot come up with rules that are readily seen as helping us toward that exact goal, you should find something other to do than try to write policy. Policy on Misplaced Pages is always undesirable (and rejected) if not carefully evaluated as to what its benefit to the encyclopedia is.--Father Goose (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant policy - WP:IINFO - is already in place. I am proposing that the notability guidelines should reflect that policy, as consensus has interpreted it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The original statement above: "WP:NOTINHERITED is often cited in AFDs" is misleading at best. Yes, it is cited often, but it is not often a successful or persuasive argument. Furthermore it is officially suggested as an argument that should be avoided in AfD debates due to the futility of its use. Individuals reading this discussion should also read the twin sister of this discussion started at the Village Pump here. Low Sea 07:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs)
  • On the contrary, it is often a successful argument in AFDs. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For it to become policy, it has to be more than "often successful in AfDs"; there has to be consensus for it as policy. There are lots of bogus outcomes to be found in AfDs (both for and against deletion) which would not make a good basis for policy. AfD does not follow the standards of consensus that are supposed to be applied everywhere on Misplaced Pages, and should definitely not be regarded as any kind of incubator for policy.--Father Goose (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Since notability is mostly only considered in AFDs, surely that's where we should be looking to see what consensus on notability is? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No. We should be evaluating rules according to whether they are a good idea, not according to pseudo-legal motions some people attempt to use during AfDs.--Father Goose (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
          • OK - so is WP:IINFO a good idea in your opinion? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I think WP:IINFO (and WP:NOT in general) is a great policy. It gives clear exclusionary rules without using arbitrary concepts like notability. I would support expanding this as much as possible (via consensus of course) if it would help eliminate the whole WP:N guideline. Low Sea (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
            • IINFO is good, up to a point. I think it's self-evident that "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" -- it's basically a platitude. It causes problems because that broad statement, lacking context (and the present expression of IINFO does lack all context) can used to try to justify deleting anything from Misplaced Pages. Any time someone has an attitude of "this is crap", they cry WP:IINFO when what they're really thinking is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
              Now, I do support each of the specific five items listed at WP:IINFO. However, it's pretty arbitrary to have characterized those five items as "indiscriminate information". IINFO is really more of a "Miscellaneous" section with an ambitious heading. If one takes the open-ended stance that "All indiscriminate information should be removed from Misplaced Pages", then such a statement has no place in policy. If one can't articulate the underlying principle of what types of information are "indiscriminate" and why they're bad, then it's a rule disconnected from the concept of "How do we make Misplaced Pages the best it can possibly be?" As I've said before, such rules are detriment to Misplaced Pages.
              As you said above, "We make Misplaced Pages the best it can be by choosing the information we include with care"; for exactly the same reason, we must choose the information we exclude with care. I see what you're presently proposing -- making WP:N even more arbitrarily restrictive, when it already has substantial flaws in this regard -- as lacking that crucial, incisive, carefulness.--Father Goose (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I think I see your POV, but I disagree. It's not at all "self-evident" that WP isn't indiscriminate, even if we limit ourselves to just the five cases IINFO supplies. Not all content that fails WP:IINFO has been read and understood, let alone removed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Inherited notability" is a very bad idea. It leads to the worst sort of cruft imaginable, especially in fiction. It is neither necessary or desirable to cover every tiny detail of a fictional work, and then declare the whole mess immune to notability due to "inherited notability" or WP:SS is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Applying "inherited notability" in fictional articles breeds scene by scene plot summaries, original research, and inappropriately long descriptions of the tiniest detail of certain works (in other words, cruft). I see nothing wrong with demanding secondary sources on every article on Misplaced Pages. --Phirazo 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I propose the following addition (in italics):

If a topic has received significant and sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

Here's my reasoning: We live in a world where memes propagate and spread at the speed of light. A tree falls in an Oregon forest and environmentalists in Atlanta are aware of the fact. It is no longer enough to simply say that "significant" coverage defines notability, since news sources are all so interconnected.

Notability, though, is marked by not only the depth of the coverage (which is indicated in our guideline by the word "significant"), and not only by the width of the coverage (indicated by "multiple"), but also by the length of the coverage.

In other words, "flash in the pan" is not notable, no matter how many news sources reword a statement and print it.

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? You have simply offered an interpretation of media coverage, not an argument as to why longevity of coverage is important to notability. As it stands, I disagree with your proposal as being needlessly exclusionary. Skomorokh 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? My reason for longevity being important to notability is stated above - but let me try to restate. One of the definitions for "wikt:Notable" is "memorable":

Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished.

Things that are remarked upon once, even by a crowd of people, are not memorable unless they remark upon it again after some time has passed. So mere coverage in the newspaper(s) at one point in time does not necessitate notability. Coverage over a period of time, or re-covering an event, indicates something is "memorable", and therefore notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree, on the basis of the principle that notability is not temporary. In my opinion, WP:NOT#NEWS and the second paragraph of this section of the guideline adequately address the notability (or lack thereof) of "flash in the pan" news stories. Black Falcon 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SatyrTN. While notability is not temporary, at the same time temporary attention does not imply notability (for an encyclopedia). The newspapers are full of stories that will be forgotten next week, and not suited for collecting knowledge relevant in the long term. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose addition. "sustained" is not necessary. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is plenty enough to be presumed to be notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Because that then presumes notability for anything that appears in multiple news reports. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Black Kite 18:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also opposed. "Sustained" is not only unnecessary, it's undefinable. Anyone could argue that coverage for any period of time is either sustained, or not. It also implies that things could become non-notable after some period of time. "Significant", although also somewhat vague, is more on target, because it speaks to whether we have enough material to write about the subject. That is what really matters. People mistakenly think notability is a judgement about the subject itself, but it it really a judgement about what has been published about the subject. Dhaluza (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's what I'm trying to point out is missing. We say "significant" and everyone takes that to mean "number". But since news organizations are so intertwined, and since information is so readily available on the internet, and since paper is no-longer a limiting factor, it's quite easy for a story to get published (often re-written somewhat) in a dozen different publications before lunch. And then be forgotten about by dinner. But it still meets our notability guidelines because of the number of sources. So however we word it, there's something missing in our definition and/or the most common interpretation of our definition. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Are siblings notable enough for inclusion on an article?

Should Misplaced Pages articles about celebrities, etc. mention siblings, or no? I'm wondering as some articles mention certain celebrities having sisters/brothers while others don't mention about them. --72.230.46.168 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability only pertains to article topics, not content. If the content is relevant to the subject, it should be included, weight and verifiability permitting. Regards, Skomorokh 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles about celebrities, etc. should mention siblings, etc, only if independent secondary sources about the celebrity have previously mentioned siblings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it

It's a ridiculous policy meant to keep people from making articles about their brothers and classmates, but come up with something addressing that issue that isn't a cop-out. The criteria for notability are too subjective, and frankly notability would limit the encyclopedia to about 1000 articles, under any reasonable interpretation of notability. The only reason I came by the notability page is because I had visited maybe the third or fourth article in a month where there was a debate about the "notability" of the article in question. Nevertheless, the articles in question provided valuable information to me. So let's leave the calls for what is notable to the person USING wikipedia and actually looking for the information. One man's notable is another man's junk. 24.182.229.4 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Loosen the rule

I believe that if Misplaced Pages wants all of their articles to be published in such publications as Newsweek, or Time, than they should get rid of most of there now 10 million+ articles. Some pages are about published topics, and are in newsletters or press releases, but aren’t on the NBC Nightly News, or on CNN. Everyone isn’t that privileged. I disagree with what some admins have told me about what is a "reliable" source. I think that a school's newsletter or a local newspaper article is a reliable source.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What we accept as reliable sources will vary depending on the type of subject, the type of statement, etc. The issue of reliability is separate from that of notability though. In the case of the quiz bowl team article that you're arguing against the deletion of, the problem isn't that the person saying it should be deleted doesn't believe the sources on the page are accurate, it's that he doesn't think they prove the team is particularly significant.

However, in your case, I think I can be a slight help to you, if only on a technicality: that speedy deletion template is only for cases where the article does not attempt to assert notability. Your page does, it's just a very weak claim. --erachima formerly tjstrf 03:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing i have to say about this all is why does it have to be significant. I could see it needing to be significant if you were trying to fit the articles into a 1000 page book, but your not. wikipedia has nearly unlimited capacity, and if not, server storage is cheap. who is judging how significant the article it. to a lot of people, academic team is their life. I'm having this problem a lot with wikipedia, and quite frankly, I'm insulted because i don't think that my article needs to be significant to everyone. I understand that things need to be reasonable, but the articles I'm dealing with are not wickedly long, or illagly obtained, or anything else, except that some admin deemed it "not significant" to their standards. I'm not finding fault with you, just the system--Headtechie2006 (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The limit is not in server space, it's in maintainability. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Key Difference Please

Can someone briefly (20 words or less) explain to me in what the key difference is between WP:N and WP:V. I have tried and the answer I am coming up with is just plain silly so I must be crazy. I would really like to see as many people provide their own independent interpretations. Low Sea (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Material that cannot be verified should not appear in Misplaced Pages because it is likely to be false. Topics that are not notable should not appear in Misplaced Pages because they create clutter and divert attention from worthwhile topics. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Topics that are not notable should not appear in Misplaced Pages because they create clutter and divert attention from worthwhile topics. " How do they do that, according to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that clutter is the main issue; in my opinion, it is the fact that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Black Falcon 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How does the rule on notability ensure that wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Does this include excluding otherwise useful information? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a proxy measure for whether a topic is "worthy of notice"; in some ways, I consider the notability guidelines to be parallel to (but not derived from) WP:NOT. As for your second quetsion: no, notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Black Falcon 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" is very very odd. It basically states that by simply reorganizing information, you can have it included or excluded from the encyclopedia. Or, in other words, that the way the information is organized is more important than the actual content. Heh, what a thing to admit. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the fault of the guideline that deletion is too often used as an alternative to merging. :) The principal purpose of Misplaced Pages:Notability is to provide guidance as to whether a topic should be covered in its own article; if the answer is "no", then the information should be merged elsewhere or, if a suitable target does not exist, deleted. Black Falcon 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many editors think that notability can be explained in terms of verifiability. Notability comes from sources- if lots of relevant sources are writing about a thing, we can have an article about it with some hope of decent quality. The best reason not to attempt to have articles on things where there are no sources is that we have no way of ensuring quality. Along the lines of the above argument, one could further argue that having and keeping non-notable articles attracts editors who aren't here to work on an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So you basically express notability in terms of verifiability? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, it's useful, there's no good way to argue with it that I've ever seen. Uncle G said it best I think: User:Uncle G/On notability. Friday (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can express notability in terms of verifiability all of the time, that has interesting consequences. Is that in fact the case? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's stronger than that. Reliable sources do not suffice; they need to be significant and independent of the subject.--B. Wolterding (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I was writing that I suspect it probably can be. Then again, I don't count things as being verifiable if the sources aren't significant and independent. Or, perhaps, to put a fine point on it: an insignificant mention in a source may be enough to verify that a thing exists... but we need to verify much more than that to have any hope of a real article. Friday (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Verification is a measure of truthfulness. Notability is a measure of relevance. (14 words, ha!) --MASEM 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut it down to 11 and you can give WP:IAR a run for its money. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Verification is a measure of truthfulness; Notability, relevance." how about 8? Though seriously, this also matches in line with the two dimensions that sources can be considered: first, second, third-party sources are (mostly) to verification as primary, secondary, and tertiary are to notability. --MASEM 13:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

break 1

NOTE:' I put the break in here just before the most recent comment (below) because erachima's point really is separate from the various explanations provided above. I am responding below. -- Low Sea

"Key difference"? Wait, what? Verifiability and notability have no significant relationship in the first place. There is a small correlation between them in that things about which there is no verifiable information cannot be significant, but that's not really related to the principle of either rule. The notability guidelines are here because, even after limiting ourselves to knowledge that is in some way or another encyclopedic (e.g. not advertisements, directory entries, etc.), we still cannot have an infinitely broad focus or we could get nothing done. By defining only certain things as notable, we can work more effectively and better serve our readers (which is the main reason we're here, of course). They help support other things as well, such keeping out spam and nonsense, but those aren't the primary reason. --erachima formerly tjstrf 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I keep seeing the requested difference explained in terms of WHY but not WHAT. Since I have provided ample time for replies here is my observation:

1. WP:V mandates that each article must have at least one verifiable source per WP:RS.
2. WP:N mandates that each article must have at least two verifiable sources per WP:RS.

If you cut through all the sludge that is about the sum total difference between the two other than WHY they exist. Please correct me if I am wrong (as mentioned earlier, I may be crazy). Low Sea 08:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Verifiability requires reliable sources to support individual claims. Notability requires that enough substantive references exist to support a complete article. (20 words on the nose! *chuckle*) Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I know I am sounding like a semantics wordsmith right now but please bear with me, I really am trying to get a grip on this thing (if that is possible). Above you use two phrases: "reliable sources" and "substantive references". What exactly is the difference between these two phrases? I searched all of WP for the latter and found just 27 hits, all of which were either used only in talk pages or in nomination pages. I could not find the phrase defined anywhere. I also would like to see if I can restate my question to make what I am asking for more clear. See break 2 below. Low Sea (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

break 2

I am trying to identify the difference in the mechanics of these two policies - the "how it works" if you will... Motivation and reasoning for using policies are fine but the actual mechanics used to say "complies" versus "does not comply" should be independent of these.

A good example of mechanics is the WP:RS primary/secondary/tertiary source definitions. Reguardless of why you might use one of these three types of sources, the difference between them is consistent and able to be identified with ease.

So, can anyone define the difference between how WP:V is proved and how WP:N is proved without refering to why the references are needed? As far as I can tell the mechanical difference between these two policies (as written) is nothing more than one of how many WP:RS are referenced. Low Sea (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability Guideline PROPOSALS are being used like real guidelines!

Hi.

I've seen the use of Notability guideline proposals as though they were accepted guidelines, with articles tagged as suspicious for not meeting sets of these proposed criteria. I disagree with this. Proposals are just that, proposals, and I do not think they shold be granted the weight and authority of real guidelines unless and until they become that. That's why they're called proposals, after all! mike4ty4 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Point them to WP:NOTPOLICY.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is a stupid stupid stupid essay. All project namespace pages are descriptive of common practice, or are supposed to be anyway. If your arguments are well summarized by any such page, simply link to it. (this is why I keep repeating that the policy/guideline/essay distinction is so useless in the first place, "proposals" doubly so). If others also agree with that page, they shall link to it as well, and you get a fluid kind of consensus thing going. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) In short: "Notability Guideline PROPOSALS are being used like real guidelines!" O RLY? OMG. Well GOOD for them! ;-)"

You rewrote the essay (to the point where it's nearly the same as WP:BASH). If you think it's still stupid, you need to rewrite it further. So what if we do develop this Solaranite bomb? We'd be even a stronger nation than now.--Father Goose (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Biographicon: crowd-sourcing non-notables

Biographicon : crowd-sourcing non-notables.

There should be a pleasant, courteous, automatic way to tell users who create non-notable biographies that there are other appropriate forums for their work. Misplaced Pages is not the only game in town. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We generally tell people that when we're in the middle of deleting their non-notable biographies on AfD. Or if it's a speedy, after the fact. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Topic - TitleZ.com data as a measure of notability ?

I am sure the topic of book sales volumes has been raised before in some context but I just found this website who identify themselves as a small firm doing independent research on book sales volumes using the amazon.com database. Would this be considered a secondary (tertiary?) source for book sales volumes and if so would these numbers be acceptable for providing notability on (A) books, and (B) authors ?? Low Sea (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In my first draft of Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) I had two related criteria: 1) The book is by a bestselling author. 2) The book has sold more than 100,000 copies. We went through various iterations. A version about a month later contained: 1) The book is a major work by a bestselling or at least notable author. 2) The book is fiction and has verifiably sold more than 500,000 copies. 3) The book is nonfiction and has verifiably sold more than 250,000 copies. It's hard to recreate nor would you appreciate the sprawling and contentious discussions that resulted in the guideline we have today but we ultimately found that for a variety of reasons, book sales numbers were not a good basis for establishing notability. To summarize poorly, some of the salient points hit upon were: books vary vastly in audience depending on where they're from (geographically) and what they're used for, such that making a positive criteria of over a certain number of sales to establish notability, which to some will imply (incorrectly) lack of notability if a book doesn't meet the arbitrary threshold, would do more harm than good.

To give an example, academic books often have small printing runs, but come to be published through very different processes than mainstream books and may be used only or chiefly by universities so the numbers will be small, or they may be on an esoteric subject but be the leading authority on that subject, yet have a tiny publication footprint. Or a book that is read all over a tiny country, but nowhere else, will pale next to a book read all over a larger country.

Then, of course, there was wrangling over the arbitrary benchmark number of sales to use, for the very reason that choosing a number was to some extent necessarily arbitrary. It kept getting lowered for the exceptions to the rules to the point where it became ineffective. You must have a too high number, not a too low, because we are attempting to establish notability criteria, not lack of notability criteria. Then it was raised that there are certain types of books that can sell huge numbers but may still not be notable (the example were certain types of cookbooks or manuals for particular types of machinery if memory serves), and with very low numbers we were at a point it was so tepid it was useless.

Anyway, there was much more and you are welcome to torture yourself reading the gallons of ink spilled (don't forget to start with the archives and see you in about ten hours), but the long and the short of it was: it was too hard to use effectively because of the variability of books; it was arbitrary and so on. After it was removed, from all of the research that came out we actually included a note for a long time: "There is no present agreement on how high or low a book must fall on Amazon's sale's rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability, vel non." We eventually removed this too. I think similar problems may crop up for authors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. I appreciate the Reader's Digest version of the history on this issue. Saved me a lot of reading (10 hours hmmm?) and even more digesting of that (ahem)discussion. Sigh ... back to the drawing board. I am trying to establish notability on a very well published (all works combined probably total over 500,000 sales) author and lecturer (self-help and spiritual guidance genre) from the 1950-1980 era but so far no luck. Guess I just don't know where to look. Any suggestions? Low Sea (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Give us the name. Much harder to give targeted advice in the hypothetical. In any event, the touchstone is always reliable sources dicsussing the person. I might be able to help there, again with the specifics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews in periodicals are your best bet for authors and their books. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out a good way to search periodicals en masse.--Father Goose (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Of course! ... The author I am trying to establish notability for is the late Dr. Joseph Murphy and to a lesser extent also the late Dr. William Hornaday. Now what I am about to say is certainly WP:OR so it doesn't help my search but I raise it here to add a small degree of perspective (ie: these men had real followings in their day)...

• When I was a boy in the 70's my dad (an interfaith minister) studied with both Dr. Murphy and with Dr. Hornaday. Each of these men started a new church, each had a weekly congregation of well over 1,000 people, and each a daily morning radio broadcasts throughout the Los Angeles area. As a kid I was "dragged" to these Sunday services and personally saw the standing room only congregations many times. Both buildings (the Wilshire-Ebell Theatre and Founder's Church respectively) are still in Los Angeles and actively in use. Dr. Murphy's church faded (his sermons were basically inspirational lectures and he had no assistant in place to take over) when he retired and moved away in 1976. Dr. Hornaday's church is still going strong. I am quite certain the impact of these men through their writings and ministries left lasting "memorable" impact on tens of thousands of people. Also, from personal inquiry with Religious Science ministers I am advised that the writings of these men is part of their required seminary reading.

Any help you can provide is appreciated. -- Low Sea (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Given names please!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be able to show it for WH, world Cat lists him as William H D Hornday, but almost no libraries have his books. For JM, there are a few hundred more holdings total of his books in several languages, & I think you could show notability. The sources for book reviews are Book Review Digest and Brook Review Index, and any large library will have them available--they do not necessarily cover works on New Thought very well. DGG (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the sources and will look into them as time permits. Too bad there isn't an online version of those references tomes. :)

On the subject of WH, the lack of provable notability is troubling. Consider the following: According to many primary aka questionable (by WP standards) sources WH was a man who led the first R.Sc. church in the country, had a personal congregation that was estimated to be over 7,000 people plus his daily radio audience, served for many decades in the capacity of eclesiastical leader for the early R.Sc. community, wrote numerous books that have wide sales (and loyal ownership, ie: they are seldom sold/donated by owners) within R.Sc. circles and who is considered absolutely mandatory reading for R.Sc. ministerial candidates. Based on all of this it appears that WH altered the lives of the tens of thousands of people who eventually came to join the R.Sc. church movement he created. Common sense tells you he ought to be notable for many things yet because pretty much all sources are from "inside" R.SC. publications he cannot meet WP:N criteria. I am somewhat new to WP but I am certain I can find many similar subjects (certain popular fads come to mind). Are there no common sense processes for notability exceptions? -- Low Sea (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran a Google book search here for Joseph Murphy and immediately found some references. For example this is good fodder for added some cited material from a secondary source (consider using {{Cite book}} with the <ref></ref> function). For Hornaday, here's a few ; ; . My quick look with results shows that there must be many more sources to mine. I'm certain the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers in the area must have written about both these men many times during their era. The fact that you might have to dig to find sources is the nature of the beast. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and our material must be written from already published sources. On the LA Times front, I just went to their website and searched their archives which only go back online to 1985 (but for images), and immediately found articles on or mentioning Hornaday—one called "Despite Unresolved Split, Religious Science Convention Goes On"; another called "Religious Science" and here's one really worth looking into: "Rev. William Hornaday; Religious Science Leader" (here's the absract). You would need to pay to access the full articles online. This means to me that if you go physically to a library with LA Times on file from the 50s and 60s in microfilm or in some other form, you'll find scads. In short, the system works fine. If someone was as influential as you say, then sources will exist, and lo and behold, here they do. But those wishing to include material and topics have the mandate of verifying information on the subject. No one ever said it wasn't work to write a proper encyclopedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the Religious Science publications should count as reliable sources about Religious Science itself, especially if treated as primary sources. They might not be good for establishing notability, but they are fine as a general source of information.--Father Goose (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)