Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 12

message: There is a dispute at WP:EPISODE regarding whether the guideline is a style guideline or a notability guideline. The page became a guideline following discussion here. It seems clear to me that the consensus was to accept this as a style guideline, but another user has disagreed with me. If you wish to comment, please do so here. Thank you, Black Falcon 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  Perhaps we need a style template similar to the Incguide, and a guideline tage which identifies style guidelines specifically the way that the notability guideline tag is specific.  --Kevin Murray 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute at [[Wikipedia:Television episodes]] 

message: Let us step back and ask "How do other encyclopedias determine article inclusion or notability?" Well they use experts, often an editorial board that decides what articles will go into the encyclopedia and then which experts will write them. The two uses of experts are different. We have a problem with article inclusion criteria because we do not use experts and have not reached a consensus of how to do it. On how to write the article we have. I am not going to argue for the use of experts. It is not the Wikipedia way. If I wanted that, as an academic, I would go to Citizendium. I am not doing that.
So what is the Wikipedia way? It is using people who care and using them to seek consensus. It works for article content with some backup core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and so on. We should be using people who care and consensus for article inclusion also. Attempts to write agreed guidelines are not going to work. Instead of experts getting together to decide whether we need an article on X, we should use our editors who care about the broad topic that X is in and know about the area. We should have more subject guidelines and trust WikiProjects more. Combined with the core policies and a robust AfD system, this will take care of article inclusion.
I know that people are going to jump in and argue that participants of WikiProjects will try to protect articles in their area and allow all kinds of rubbish in. What is the evidence for this? I do not see it. I am active in several WikiProjects and find the opposite. The Project often has it own criteria and the members are concerned about quality. Let me give two rather different projects. The first, the Wine Project is fairly new and started when there was already a mass of articles on wine, wineries and wine companies. The project wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide and are working to clean up wine articles by merging or deletion. The other, the Scouting Project, started in early 2006 when the coverage of Scouting in WP was poor. It has also developed criteria and regularly merges (often mostly out of existence) articles on individual troops, individual Gang Shows, or merit badges, and many individual camp sites into larger articles. It discourages articles on non-notable topics and educates editors to move towards higher quality. All the Projects I work in do the same. We should be trusting our equivalent of subject experts, the editors who care and know about a topic and work together to improve its coverage on Wikipedia. --Bduke 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm biased, because the only time I saw something even remotely similar happen was... Goddess, that was two and a half years ago? Regardless, it led to the creation of WP:COMIC, then WP:WEB, and a lot of the usual arguing (including an ArbCom case) until the original proposal was recanted and the following suggestion was to move off Wikipedia for all the topic's needs. The only other project I'm involved in maintains a deletion list but doesn't get involved beyond that. Nifboy 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will note that our activity on webcomics has largely made us a laughingstock in the sizeable webcomic community, and that we still don't handle it properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On those rare instances which aren't an emotionally charged, spiteful "circle of friends" endeavor, I care. The rest, I do not. Nifboy 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know nothjing of our efforts on webcomics or of any relevant Project. I would welcome more information about how we fail. However, if as jeff says, we still do not handler it well, that is not an argument against my proposal as all current guidelines and policies are not working either. --Bduke 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Brian's thoughts are very sensible, and are much in keeping with the spirit of wiki.  Trust the contibutors.  Keep the rules simple.  Don't over-regulate or you'll stifle investment.  SmokeyJoe 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not proposing "leaving such decisions solely in their hands". There is still AfD and if the article does not follow policy, such as having no good sources etc., or even if other editors think the Project is keeping crap, then there will be consensus to delete. In fact that is pretty much how it works at present. I would also add that it has been determined that putting a neutral piece of information on a Project page about a AfD proposal is not canvassing and nor is using the deletion sorting pages. I do not think that labelling the main people who care about a topic and have some knowledge of it as non-neutral is helpfull. As Wikipedia gets bigger and bigger, the Projects are becoming our greatest strength. However, perhaps we could use some other mechanism such as WP:RFC to pull WikiProjects into line if they are being non-neutral. My experience is that Projects are bending over backwards to show that they are following NPOV and I have not come across a Project that says "Keep anything that relates to our area!". If they do, we have other mechanisms to stop them. --Bduke 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrmmmmmm! Actually, your proposed RFC on projects, I believe, has some merit whether or not we were allowing them to make content decisions and guidelines. (The larger ones often de facto can do that anyway, I do imagine we'd be rid of a lot of Pokecruft if not for WP:POKEMON). I think Wikiprojects can often be wonderful, and I've seen tremendously good work out of them, but if we're going to ask them to set content policies (or even significantly influence them within their specific area), we need a way to make sure that those guidelines are in line with the core policies and standards. That's not so big a deal for some projects (I'm in WP:CITIES myself, but cities are pretty unmistakably acceptable for inclusion, and there's tons of sources on any city I can think of), but others will have to have good and clear ways for dealing with the borderline areas, and that'll have to be something besides "Eh, throw everything you can find in." Maybe we can more widely publicize the examples of the projects you cite, and hope others will follow suit? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "I know that people are going to jump in and argue that participants of WikiProjects will try to protect articles in their area and allow all kinds of rubbish in. What is the evidence for this?" - Browsing through Category:All_articles_lacking_sources shows a few articles that are not great and are part of projects.  AGF makes me say that these articles will be improved or deleted, but I've seen plenty of poorly sourced, poorly written, articles remain unchanged since their creation, with no indication that they'll be improved.  If it's an article about a real life 'thing' that has some sources it's possible for someone -perhaps even me- to have a go at article improvement, but often stubs stay stubs because they only have a primary source (the thing appears in episode 68 of series three of some show) or because the thing has no usable sources.  EG: Football (soccer) players will get bare biographical details on some official club site, and a whole bunch more stuff on some fan blog. (I'm not attacking the soccer wikiproject, they appear to be happy to delete articles and they appear to be working hard to improve wikipedia.) Dan Beale 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different view 

message: With all of the stuff around the Virginia Tech massacre and the keeping of List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, are List of Victims of (insert event here) articles OK as long as the victims are collectively notable? And yes, I do know that consensus can change. UnfriendlyFire 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. "List of victims of X" articles are essentially extensions of the main article. I think the only concern is to make sure that the victims are indeed collectively notable and that the resulting article does not stand in violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL or WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd rather see any listing of victims as part of the main article ... but that's a merging decision up to the editors involved in those articles. I think from the standpoint of Wikipedia:Notability, there is no problem to a "List of victims" who are collectively notable. From the standpoint of other policies, I think it largely depends on how the article is written and how available sources are utilised. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: as I have been saying at  the Afd discussions each individual one of them has or is gathering ore than 21 independent sources of individual media coverage, which , according to the general N rule, would make them notable in their own right, in which case a category would be also appropriate. If so, the list wpould be more appropriate in the main article. (I do seem to be in a minority about this, however)DGG 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "21 sources" may each have only a passing mention of the individual victim in a collective list. We have often kept victim lists for shooting sprees, but have generally not done so for plane crashes or terrorist bombings or people in WTC1 or WTC2. I have commented that in a serial event such as a spree killing, each victim has a chance to interact with the killer (such as blocking the door at the cost of his own life, by giving a "Christian witness," jumping out a window, attacking the killer, while in bombings or most plane crashes (not Flight 93), they were purely in the wrong place at the wrong time and their actions or lack thereof generally had no bearing on the outcome. Edison 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of Victims 

message: A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed policy change at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] 

message: Wikipedia:Notability has consensus support as a guideline.  (This is not to say that WP:N does or does not have certain problems requiring further work.)  Yes or No?    SmokeyJoe 12:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline status 

message: Any objection to removing the definition of "substantial" in WP:N#The notability criterion?  The current version does not use the word, and it's incongruous to define a word that's not in the criterion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of having a conversation with myself, I think "substantial" just needs to be changed to "subject".  If no-one objects, I will make the change.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is false.  The text from the template was never agreed upon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not false!  I said: "the text from the template was the most agreed upon recent version." Let's cut the propaganda. --Kevin Murray 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no propaganda - the texdt in the template was overwhelmingly rejected.  Read the March archives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial? 

message: "Coverage" is a vague, ill-defined term and in fact implies "newspaper" or "radio station", not "historical books", etc. It should not be used here. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see that. Coverage regers to the amount that or degree to which an object is covered/addressed. It has nothing to do with the source of the coverage. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to a clearer term being used if one can be suggested, but "coverage" really can have a pretty broad meaning. Something can be covered on the BBC, in a scholarly report, in a 500-year-old book ("The recently rediscovered texts, written in a medieval monastery, cover every detail of the reign of seven kings..."). I don't really see it as being exclusive of any particular type of sourcing, so long as such sources are published and verifiable (and that really is a requirement). Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coverage" 

message: I've noticed The California Aggie has been tagged with notability.  Is there any set criteria for newspapers anywhere?  It seems to me that official student newspapers should be considered notable.  Any thoughts, or links to an official newspaper policy? matt91486 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If third-party sources don't substantially cover the newspaper, then it is not notable enough to have its own article. Merge it in to the main article about the school. —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student Newspapers 

message: The Tigerman Saga
This is a valid work of fiction, and has been heavily edited on the page (search Tigerman in wikipedia), and is threatening to be pulled.
It received a full page editorial write up, in Nightflying Magazine, that has a circulation of over 80,000 per month. It got raves. They also published it as a full page write up in their online version of their magazine.
It sells nothing, it is not commercial, and it's sole purpose is to entertain viewers with extremely elaborate 3d digital Illustrations, and an innovative story. I have seen nothing like it on the internet, and is truly groundbreaking. It has links to the National Wildlife Humane Society (a non-profit endangered species org of sanctuaries that rescue endangered species, mostly big cats).
It is valid literature, and valid art. It is in e-form, and although there is a DVD of it that can be purchased (proceeds to endangered species only), it is also available in that same audio visual format for free download.
OK, my name is not Hemingway, nor Tolkien, but since nothing is being offered for sale, then it has NO commercial nature whatsoever. If you want a book by Tolkien or Hemingway, that cannot be said. I have also seen HUGE wikipedia pages on comic books that are totally obscure, out of print and unattainable.
I have an animal sanctuary myself, and am the subject of a National Geographic Explorer special, for a rescue of a couple of tigers that the government confiscated. 
What makes an illustrated online book any less important in the literary artworld, than one that is on paper?
With the deep messages of conservation and wildlife preservation, it is an important e-book, and deleting it means that wikipedia will not read it but cast judgement based soley on someone named Xtreme racer. There are no copyright violations, and as author I m giving my work away freely.
I devoted 10 months of hard work into this piece of literature, and have seen much other artists, and writers work elaborated on wikipedia. You may find a link to me, Catman, on the Almman Brothers Website... Wikipedia sees fit to provide and enormous page concerning their artistic contributions, and I have not seen Xtreme racer pruning their site and threatening deletion.
Thecatman1 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tigerman 

message: WP:OR specifically states the following: Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. --Kevin Murray 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely a contradiction between that and WP:V.  Neither of those should have any bearing on our activity here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, I'm not seeing anything in WP:V which requires a secondary source, but I could be missing it.  I see "third party", "published" etc. but no requirement for secondary sources.  Why would we want to be more restrictive in determining inclusion? --Kevin Murray 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything here, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the WP:NOR policy is pretty restrictive: it cites only two exceptions to the secondary source policy (current events and legal cases).  I think if this guideline has none of the  qualifications of WP:NOR it would be misleading.  Also, KM, you should note that you added the emphasis above, and there is no such emphasis in the policy.  UnitedStatesian 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I bolded that quote since it is the pertinent issue.  I don't think that giving two examples is meant to be specifically restrictive to those two cases only, and current events is a pretty broad category.  --Kevin Murray 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see any tension. Guidelines can be given the rare exception (as the guideline tag says), NOR is acknowledging the rare exceptions, while still stating, as this guideline does, that articles should rely on secondary sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering primary sources 

message: I propose that WP:NEO guideline be merged into the manual of style.  Part of this page deals with the use of such words in articles, which is clearly within the purview of WP:MOS.  The remaining discussion of neologisms as topics for articles is redundant to other guidelines such as WP:N and no original research. --Kevin Murray 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[WP:NEO]] to Manual of style 

message: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 
Given that it seems we must have a notability test, I don't consider the wording or inclusion of the notability criterion to be disputed any more.  Who does?   SmokeyJoe 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording does not reflect community consensus, thus the tag.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  bdjeff, could I trouble you to light a(nother) candle instead of cursing the dark?  The latest (4/23) language I saw you propose was: "Notability of an article's subject is based upon a consensually-reached criteria for that topic. It is expected that editors adding that information do so using our policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources."  I don't find that helpful at all: I don't understand your distinction between "subject" and "topic", I don't understand your reference to "that information" (I assume you mean "information on the subject's notability," but I don't know for sure), but would welcome further enlightenment on your proposal, or a different, positive proposal. But I do think we tend more easily to reach consensus incrementally instead of radically: what is the ONE WORD in the current text you would most like to change (is it "multiple"?), and to what? (Then we can move on to the second word . . .) UnitedStatesian 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that, if we were to discuss such wording, we could adjust as we went.  For one, "topic" and "subject" are interchangeable - I was trying to reduce use of the word "subject" and inadvertently created some confusion.  Secondary, by "that information," I meant "information on the subject of the article," i.e., "It is expected that editors adding information to Foo do so..."  As for incremental consensus, the radical change was this PNC.  No incrementalism existed in the establishment of it, and consensus is clear that the current wording lacks support.  My problem words with the current criterion? "is," "subject," "non-trivial," "multiple,"  "secondary".  None of those words in the current criterion reflect the reality of consensus or help distinguish whether something is notable or not.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too dislike "non-trivial" but we have not been able to form consensus on another word. I would support an alternative. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that the word "subject" is misleading, but the problem is mitigated in the bullet points, substantially reducing my objection. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't see the need for including "secondary."   Primary sources which are not primary research may establish notability, based on the notability of the primary source.  Clearly this adds more subjectivity, but it seems impossible to have a purely objective standard for inclusion. --Kevin Murray 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we absolutely have to have "secondary," because to do otherwise would be contrary to WP Policy, which states: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources" UnitedStatesian 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At no point would it be contrary to policy to allow primary sources to establish notability in some cases.  It only becomes contrary to policy to allow an article to exist without any secondary sources, which is a different situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which policy requires that all articles have at least one secondary source? --Kevin Murray 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I took the quote above from WP:NOR, and note that it uses the plural, "sources." UnitedStatesian 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping in mind that none of the wording has consensus support, the only issue I have with your comment here is that "subject" is somehow mitigated in the bullet points - I'm not seeing it.  Perhaps you mean the section in non-trivial that says that it need not be the only subject, but it doesn't solve the issue, especially in terms of notability - a series of "trivial" mentions can establish notability, such as mentions in greater articles about important things, a few sentences about a related subject, etc.  One or two may not establish much, but if you have 5 "trivial" mentions that say five different things, it establishes the importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is subjective based on the definition of "trivial"  which is such a loose word.  But I do agree that notability can be cummulative from many sources.  I just don't think that we can codify this to absolute objectivity.  How can we achieve your goal without opening the barn door to the nonsense? --Kevin Murray 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as objective notability, so we're never going to achieve this. The way to make sure the "barn door" stays shut is twofold: 1) leave the subject specific guidelines be, who have traditionally done a good job keeping that door shut, and 2) in the abscense of the subject-specific guidelines, simply make sure that we expect that there's a sufficient amount of information to demonstrate the notability, and allow the various processes to hash out the details (i.e., make the AfD question not about lawyering over multiple sources, but rather about whether the sources presented establish notability). --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel that the current version allows enough flexibility within the bullet points to address extraordinary circumstances where multiple sources are not available.  While I have preferred other versions, I feel this is fairly close.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has demonstrated consensus, but it has my support.  However, quoting this at sub-pages without the bullet points will be misleading. --Kevin Murray 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No strong objection, but the word "coverage" implies press coverage, rather than inclusion in books etc.  Can we come up with something better?  --Kevin Murray 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: . . and I would suggest using either "topic" or "subject" consistently, and not switching from one to the other. UnitedStatesian 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, switching words leads to ambiguity. --Kevin Murray 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree about consistency ... I don't the reason behind the notion that "coverage" implies press coverage, but please see the section above titled "Coverage". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Centrx.  However, I see problems with both coverage and subject, but for lack of a better word, would rather support coverage. --Kevin Murray 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it solves that problem, I think, but not others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We're getting somewhere, but the non-trivial is still problematic as I've detailed above - significant trivial coverage sometimes demonstrates notability in a better way than minimal non-trivial coverage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about "extensive", rather than "significant"?  Or maybe "ample" or "considerable"?  Xtifr tälk 06:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed wording or inclusion of the notability criterion 

message: I propose changing "primary" and "criterion" to "general" and "guideline" throughout the guideline page.  For my longwinded reasons, and the reaction so far, please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Trying to help Please add further comment below.UnitedStatesian 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you propose as the relationship between the "general guideline" and the subject specific guidelines?--Kubigula (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend that the change from "primary" to "general" remove a possible interpretation that this guideline is somehow superior to the existing SS guidelines.  I see them as peer guidelines, and I like this GL's current language that reads "shared by many of the subject specific guidelines . . ." This guideline is most important in its applicability to subjects that have no SS GLs.  Let me know if this helps. UnitedStatesian 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps me understand your proposal, but I don't think it solves our problem.  The problem, as I see it, is that we have a web of guidelines on notability that don't mesh with each other very well.  Almost all of the subject specific guidelines have some variation on the "general guideline", though the language is subtely different in each.  To me, this creates confusion and opens the door to wikilawyering.  Also, there is an inconsistency in saying a group of comedians should be subject to a slightly different version of the general guideline than a group of musicians.  To me, the whole notability scheme would make much more sense if we could agree on a single basic "general guideline" for notability - I personally have no problem calling it that rather than a "primary criterion".  This guideline should then be incorporated into the subject specific guidelines - not as a trump, but as unifying theme.  Frankly, I rather like the way WP:MUSIC addresses the issue - you are presumed notable if you meet the general guideline or if you meet one of the other subject specific indicators of notability (charted hit etc).--Kubigula (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have no preference, but we are seeing resistance at the sub-guidelines to titles that suggest primacy of this concept of notability over the subject specific “exceptions”.  I advocate a consistent primary guideline, but it seems to be non-PC to have a PNC. --Kevin Murray 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting proposal, to attract more comments 

message: Could someone point me toward the notability guidelines for the inclusion of lists in Wikipedia - if one exists?  My feeling is that the bar for inclusion of a list article vs. a standard article is set somewhat differently.  Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of lists 

message: Sorry, I do not have time to be here all the time so I keep coming back to see what you are discussing. On the face of it, this statement does appear objective, but I think when you explore it further it is not. "Others considering it worthy of note" simply means that they have noted it - i.e. mentioned it somewhere. We then have to decide whether the mention is trivial or not trivial, really independent of the subject or dependent, significant or not, reliable or not, and so on. All of these are subjective. It is in my opinion a mistake to use words that appear objective when they are not. Also writing about something only means the author wanted to write about it. It is does not imply the writer thought it notable. I go back to my earlier view that we use as many specific guidelines as possible for broad subjects, possibly by using WikiProjects and then discuss topics that fall between the cracks at AfD. The more we try to pin this down, the more we will be using this to delete articles that should not be deleted. Note, I am neither a deletionist or an inclusionist, but I do say it is better to keep an article if it well written than to delete one. Readers being  interested in the topic is just as valid a claim of notability as the ones we are discussing. --Bduke 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  My personal criteria for encyclopedic inclusion is whether there is likely to be significant curiosity about the topic.  I think that we are here to answer questions, and when we can we should, but always accurately.  --Kevin Murray 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But accurately is the point here. Yes, obviously, if we can give a good, well-sourced answer, we should. But if all we can give is guesses, interpretation, and original research and unreliable material, we're doing the reader the greatest service by saying "We don't have enough material to give you a comprehensive overview. You'll have to figure this one out on your own." We're not Google, we don't need articles on every passing Internet fad or flash-in-the-pan current events story. That's Wikinews' job, not ours. Ours is to wait for reliable secondary sources, and if and only if there are enough of those to write a good encyclopedia article, write one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should move the page to Wikipedia:Noted since the actual state of being noted (rather than the capacity to be noted) is what we're looking for here. Nifboy 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic is notable if others have considered it worthy of note. Is that objective? 

message: Reading much of the discussion above, I've made some changes to the text:
#I've made some changes to the meat and potatoes based on the discussions we've had - it incorporates much of everything, mostly based on Kevin Murray's text.
# I've added a tag to start further discussion on the actual subjectiveness of notability, which appears to have been established.  Further discussion is necessary.
Thoughts as we continue on? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Why must these be secondary sources?  Some primary sources are legitimate.  I think that secondary somewhat implies tertiary, but is this ambiguous?  I like the word sources better in the first sentence and then clarify below in a bullet paragraph.  --Kevin Murray 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that's a poor oversight on my part.  As long as independent is there, that's the important part - independent primary sources can establish notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording of "Significant" in this context means providing enough information to establish the notability of article's topic. is hopelessly subjective (not to mention extremely exclusionist). It's not the content within sources that proves notability, but rather the existence of such content. The former requires a subjective judgment to be made by editors. Who's to say that "Olympic gold-medal winning" is not an insufficient claim of notability, if I choose to argue that way? Sure, the majority will disagree with me, but this turns article deletion into a popularity contest. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, notability is subjective - this is simple fact.  It's not the existence of the content that shows notability, that misunderstands the entire concept.  I also don't understand your re-addition of "multiple," which was discussed at length above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also don't see the need to mention "mutiple" in the lead paragraph, since it is discussed in detail in one of the following paragraphs. --Kevin Murray 18:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (moving my comment below following an edit conflict; also to reindent) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  It seems that significant or non-trivial are equally subjective.  I a tie, I would vote for the non-hyphenated word. --Kevin Murray 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I support your changes, Jeff. Kevin's note about the sources is a good point, too. I really dislike the wording of footnote 9, though. Maybe we can come up with a less cliche figure of speech to adequately explain that a well-research deletion nomination/argument is preferred. — Scientizzle 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this better for footnote 9: "*  Wikipedians have been known to reject on nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched.  Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or infomation which would demonstrate notablility in an other manner."? --Kevin Murray 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite. Nicely done. — Scientizzle 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the second option also. --Kevin Murray 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no real difference between the two.  The first is more semantically correct, the second simply more explicit.  How do we choose whether something is worthy of note?  By discussion.  Notability, being inherently subjective, recognizes this.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a massive difference. In the first case, we make the judgment of whether something is "worthy of note". In the second case, the judgment is made by those who publish sources. We shouldn't choose whether something is worthy of note (parly because it's OR and partly because we'll never agree ... by "we", I mean the Wikipedia community, not the two of us specifically). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on board with the collective we.  If you're concerned with OR, we should junk notability entirely, as all notability, using that barometer, is original research - we're choosing whether something meets a threshold of note, not letting something else indicate that threshold.  The OR argument holds no water - we instead come to the conclusion of what's notable - worthy of inclusion - by discussion and consensus, and not making any actual commentary on the subject other than whether we should include it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point in the abstract, but we have to make some concession to what is practical in the real world.  No purely objective standard is possible in the realm of notability, but the more subjectivity that can be removed the better.  Otherwise, is subject to infinite tests at AfD and subject to the luck of the draw as to who is participating in the debates that day.  --Kevin Murray 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Practicality in the real world is exactly why I'm pushing for these changes.  A source-based test has no real world practicality or legitimacy - see, for instance, Wikipedia's reputation concerning webcomics. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, that's my point. We shouldn't be choosing whether something meets a threshold of note ... we should simply reflect whether others consider a topic to have met a certain threshold of note. The original research is not done by us, but rather by people who create published works. I agree that their (i.e., writers') choices are subjective, but that needn't be our concern. The legitimacy of a source-based test lies in the fact that the presence of sources proves that others have considered a subject worthy of note. We can create a subguideline for webcomics that deviates from the PNC, but our general framework of notability should not be based in the ever-changing subjective whims of editors. --Black Falcon (Talk) 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we just wait until someone says "So-and-so is notable?"  You may as well eliminate 90% of our articles in general then, since those words don't ever show up.  No matter what, the test we apply is going to be subjective, so it may as well reflect reality.  The subject-specific guidelines do a good job of that, a sourced-based one does not, as demonstrated in the February and March archives.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again focusing on the content of sources. If I write about topic X, it means that I consider topic X worthy of note, irrespective of what I write. If I didn't consider the topic worthy of note, I would not have bothered writing about it. You claim that any test is subjective, but ... how is the presence or absence of sources subjective? We either are able to find sources or we are not. There's nothing subjective about that. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the assumption that sources = notability is subjective.  And once you establish that, you must establish the basis for when those sources are useful.  And once you establish that, you have to figure out if those sources are actually worth using.  And that's where the subjectivity comes in.  If we simply say "sources," then, again, this is not a useful page, because anything and everything has some sort of source.  Ultimately, whether we can find sources or not is irrelevant to whether something is notable enough for inclusion.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of the type of sources that may be used is partly covered by WP:RS. Some parts of the PNC are indeed arbitrary (though not subjective): the "multiple" criterion, for instance. Any test will include some agreed-upon arbitrary criteria. However, the basic premise that the presence of published works proves that others consider a topic worthy of note is not subjective. If they didn't consider it worthy of note, why would they write those works? If we can agree on that basic premise, the other parts (multiple vs. single, substantial vs. non-trivial, secondary vs. independent) can be worked out through consensus. However, the starting point must not be subjective. To say that a topic is notable if we editors say it is will leave us in a hopeless pit of subjective confusion and will also legitimise the deletion of "notable" (per my definition) but unpopular articles. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to use RS as a barometer, again, fine by me - open the barn door wide open, I'm all for it.  Realistically, though, it can't be done.  "Multiple" is just as subjective as anything else, by the way - you've made a subjective decision that a single source cannot establish notability, which is completely false anyway.  That's why I can't agree with the "basic premise" - it's unrealistic.  Sources don't constitute notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's forget the "multiple", let's forget "non-trivial", let's forget everything except the basic premise I initially advanced: the existence of sources about a topic proves that people outside of Wikipedia have considered it sufficiently noteworthy to write about it. You've stated that it's subjective and that you disagree with it, but have as yet not stated why. So, why is it subjective? Which part do you disagree with? Also, I hate to nitpick, but while the choice of "multiple" is arbitrary, its inclusion does not make the PNC subjective (it makes it arbitrary, but not subjective: different people with the same information should arrive at the same conclusion). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because sources do not constitute notability - notability is being worthy of note, which is done by action, not by who can be arsed to write about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff's statement is right.  The conflict here could be avoided by WP:N talking about "sufficiently notable".  "Notable" has a dictionary definition that is not the one asserted here.   SmokeyJoe 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree that just writing about a subject is indicitive that the author perceives notability.  The only remaining issue then is verifying independence.  I think that determining NPOV and accuracy are more related to our content rather than determining notabiltiy. --Kevin Murray 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with your final statement, but we're not quite there yet as a project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never thought I'd say this, but I like most of Jeff's change. I don't object to removing "secondary" as redundant (independent sources are by definition secondary anyway), and independence of the source from the subject is indeed what we should be focusing on. I did take out reference to the subject-specific guidelines as an "override", since that seems to give the impression that if something passes a subject-specific guideline, we should write on it even without independent sourcing. Per V, this is incorrect-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it," and of course core policies override either this guideline or the subject-specific ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My problem with removing "secondary" is that it opens the door to independent tertiary sources (e.g. the phonebook and similar) to establish notability.  Many, many of these are unfortunately used as "sources" for wikipedia articles UnitedStatesian 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "independent sources are by definition secondary anyway" is not true.  "Independent" here is not well defined.  If Seraphimblade disagrees, please cite the definition.  "Secondary sources" is the important term, and is well defined in scholarly fields, even if the boundaries can be fuzzy.  UnitedStatesian is wrong to assert that a phonebook is a tertiary source.  A phonebook is a primary source.  It is co-temporary and offers no transformative commentary or analysis.  SmokeyJoe 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at WP:ATTFAQ for primary, secondary, and tertiary. As to the phone book, we can classify it as a 16th-level Paladin source if we want to. It's still a trivial (or insignificant, under the new wording) source, so it still makes no difference. "Independent" means that the person or organization who published the information is not related to the subject of the information. So, for example, a corporation's own report on the quality of its products is non-independent, as is the report of testers hired by that corporation. On the other hand, the results of :Consumer Reports or :Underwriters Laboratories would be independent. A person's autobiography is non-independent. A biography written by a scholar or author is. A reprinted press release from a corporation or other entity is non-independent. A story in the press written by a reporter is independent. Hopefully that gives some clarity? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: “As to the phone book, we can classify it as a 16th-level Paladin source if we want to.”  Only if you think this is an exercise in frivolity.  “It's still a trivial (or insignificant, under the new wording) source” A phone book is neither trivial nor insignificant.  If you needed to cite the address of a certain person at a certain time, a phone book entry would be suitable.  It is depth of coverage of a subject that should be described as trivial, or significant, or incidental, not the publication itself.  Do you need examples of independent sources that are primary, and others that are secondary, and yet others that are not independent but are secondary, for you to understand that independent sources and secondary sources are not the same thing? SmokeyJoe 02:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No need, you did it for me! The article you pointed to on primary sourcing already very nicely addresses the bias/non-independence issue. Under some circumstances, it is possible that a primary source could be independent (for example, the account of an eyewitness to a crime, an old journal found writing about someone who put something about a historic event in it). But the converse is not true, secondary sources (the final police report on that same crime, a historian's book on that event) are always independent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A book, covering the history of a school, funded and published by the school, written and edited by staff of the school, is a non-independent secondary source, with regard to a covered historical event within the school.  A company annual report, where it comments on company activity, is also a non-independent secondary source.  Your historian's book on the crime is non-independent if the historian was the criminal, the victim or was otherwise involved in the crime.  The final police report is non-independent if the driver paid the police.  --SmokeyJoe 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: Should the notability criterion include the word “sufficiently”, or would that be too convoluted?
We don’t want it too convoluted, but as the criterion stands (has always stood), it begins by asserting a fallacy.  Notable, as defined by the criterion, is different to notable as defined elsewhere, and as used in the real world.  Is not wikipedia supposed to communicate in standard English, and so should use standard English definitions?  As it stands, the criterion implies that notability is boolean.  Of course it is not.  Something can be not notable, barely notable, kind of notable, very notable or extremely notable.  The insertion of “sufficiently” clarifies that while there may be a range of degrees of notability, that notable enough for one purpose may be different for another, and that whatever the test of notability used elsewhere, this is the agreed measure for wikipedia.  Thoughts, anyone?  SmokeyJoe 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is either notable or isn't.  I personally see no reason to entertain the idea of "borderline" notability and leave that door open further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Smokeyjoe. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I agree with Badlydrawnjeff.  --Coolcaesar 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jeff as well ... the use of the word "sufficiently" introduces uncertainty to the guideline that is, in my view, unnecessary. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such qualifiers would just cloud the issue. Whether something is "barely notable" or "extremely notable" has little bearing on the policy. In both instances, it would be "notable". Things that are more notable should likely be treated in greater depth with a wider variety of sources. However, that's a matter of article-building, as opposed to determining notability in and of itself. Vassyana 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In legal or academic language, a term often carries a much more precise meaning than is usual in its day-to-day use.  I think it is much better to explain precisely what the term "notable" means in the context of Wikipedia than to smudge its meaning to fit daily, imprecise language.  nadav 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic is (sufficiently?) notable if 

message: Hi.
Why not just do away with notability? Notice how in the WP:V page, it says that: "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.". There you go -- that's the threshold for inclusion and OFFICIAL policy. As long as something meets that, and all other official policies including WP:NOT (ie. it does not make Wikipedia into something it is not), then it should be fair game for inclusion. However, if there is a gneral consensus (and there seems to be) that the actual bar is higher and notability is necessary, then I suggest that this WP:N page be worked out to the point where it can become official policy, and/or WP:V's statement changed (not to discredit verifiability, but just to make clear that it is not sufficient for inclusion. Necessary, but not sufficient.). mike4ty4 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered ad nauseum in the archives and is indicated in this guideline: Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to the verifiability of specific facts, not to whether a topic at large is included in the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty well agreed with Centrx. It is verifiable that "Seraphimblade (Wikipedia editor)" exists. (After all, I'm talking to you right now, and in a published, accessible form.) Yet an article on that subject would be inappropriate. That's what notability handles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There's so much in the archives I'd have no idea where to look for this specific issue :-O Anyway, there is no place in the guideline that V applies to specific facts and not the inclusion of entire topics. So the difference between N and V as "bars of inclusion" is that they deal with differing scope: WP:N deals with entire subjects, WP:V deals with individual facts. mike4ty4 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of the notability system? Or make it official policy? 

message: Dont understand the criteria for "subject to immediate deletion", because this article pertains to a person. Further the system states that the criteria is based upon persons who attract media attention or that people would be interested in knowing about. Who is the creator of this site, nor anyone else, the authority to claim which person who has lived or will live in this world is or is not of importance? An encyclopedia is a reference of knowledge, and history. Every person who lives or has lived has made an impact on history, no matter how small or how large, is equally important. The creator of this site, the company, its employees editors etc.. are merely living in the current time frame, so what can they decide or not decide as to the actions of persons no matter how insignificant, value to the overall knowledge base of the world in general? Why would this site make such criteria, especially over the history of individuals living or had lived in this world? So Paris Hilton should have more claim to fame than Mary Jones living in a poor black neighborhood? There have been many noted stories of un-notable persons, who have made great impact in the world, so who is to judge the significance of any persons particular influence over the world? An encyclopedia should be about the stating of facts as they happened, no matter if it is about John Doe and his first bike, or President Clinton and his first speech. If this site intends to limit such actions of incidence, as subject to the whims of its creator and its employees, then wikipedia truly is not an encyclopedia by any nature whatsoever, rather is an accident that just happened to get popular by many users of the internet worldwide. Anything that happens in the world is an event which has right to be reported in an encyclopedia, not censored as the intention is clearly set forth by the policies of wikipedia.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acscom (talk • contribs) 
:There have to be limits on the topics we cover on Wikipedia. Don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written largely by non-experts. So in order to have credibility as an information resource, we have to stop people from using Wikipedia as free advertising for their company, or to write vanity articles on themselves. It's also necessary to attribute content on Wikipedia to a reliable source; if there aren't enough reliable sources on someone to write a decent article about them, then they can't have an article. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, dedicated to publishing established and verifiable human knowledge; we're not here to make judgments about people who have "made great impact in the world" according to our own subjective views, or to publicise people and things who we think the world should know about. That isn't the job of an encyclopedia, and never has been. Walton Need some help? 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understand 

message: I would like to seek some guidance here on whether or not it is appropriate to consider entries directories such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) as meeting the requirements of The notability criterion.  If this is the wrong place to ask for guidance on interpretation, please redirect this discussion somewhere else.
;Background
The problem relates particularly to the British gentry and aristocracy, especially to Baronets (a hereditary title best confering the title "Sir", a sort of halfway house between a knighthood and a peerage):
*There are a number of articles, particularly those on British gentry and aristocracy where these volumes have been cited as references, and claimed as evidence of notability
*So far I have seen three schools of thought:
*#That holders of hereditary titles should be treated as inherently notable, since that is an inherent characteristic of nobility
*#That in the UK, the only hereditary titles which confer a presumption of notability per WP:BIO are those which confer (or conferred) a seat in the House of Lords (the history of that subject is a little complex, and needn't concern us here); the other titles are irrelevant
*#That most holders of such titles meet the criteria for notability through their inclusion in at several of the guides such as Debretts and Whos Who
The above is my attempt at a neutral summary of the discussions at WikiProject Baronetcies. I hope that I have summarised the position accurately, but if any correction is needed I would ask that people try not to rehearse all the details of the positions we discussed at great length, but just briefly add to or clarify the summary.
;Assessment
The first position (automatic notability), is one which goes a little beyond WP:NOBLE, a proposed guideline which did not achieve consensus.  I suggest that anyone is free to try to revive that process and seek consensus for a new guideline, but in the meantime, there is no such guideline, and that there is therefore no automatic presumption of notability for those such as baronets whose titles have never conferred a seat in the House of Lords.
The second position is roughly the status quo, strictly interpreted; it provides an answer only in conjunction with the third point.
The third point is the one which I am bringing here, because it seems to me (per my contribution to a recent AfD on a Baronet) that it offers a resolution to the dispute:
*If these directories do meet the critera, then articles referencing those sources meet the notability test
*If Debretts etc do not meet the notability criterion, then any such articles need other sources to pass the notability thresholds.
;Caveat
Anyone reading the recent discussions will be aware that feelings are running very high on this question. Amongst the protagonists there are thoe who hold the British honours system in contempt, and those who revere it: both POVs are, of course, entirely legitimate and honorable, but unfortunately bring us no closer to resolving the dispute within existing guidelines, and our overriding requirement to neutrally accommodate all points of view.  I would therefore ask contributors to this discussion to avoid those wider perspectives, and to focus solely on assessing whether volumes such as Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage and Who's Who (UK) meet the the notability criterion. My proposition is that if we can resolve that relatively simple question, we will be much closer to reaching agreement on the fate of the individual articles
I personally lean towards a conclusion that those volumes don't meet the notability criterion, but it seems to me to be a very grey area and I have not made up my own mind.  Here are the points which I have seen raised so far (I have labelled as pro those who reckon that Debrett's, Who's Who etc meet the criteria):
;Notability criterion
#The non-trivial test
#*Pro: Proponents of the directories argue that while the entries are tersely written, they are nonetheless non-trivial, and in some cases extend to a full page; opponents argue
#*Anti: Opponents argue that most of the entries are little more than genealogical lists and potted biographies like a condensed CV, and that many include only a short paragraph on each individual 
#*but both sides seem to agree that no original research is needed to to extract the content
#The Independence test
#*Anti: many of these volumes rely heavily on input from the subjects (when they are alive), and so cannot be counted as independent of the subject (e.g. subjects draft their own entries for Who's Who)
#*Pro: regardless of who drafts the entries, they are checked by the publishers, and any falsification would be rapidly noted by some of the many expert readers.  Since falsification would be detected, it would serve only to damage the reputation of any individual who tried it
#The Independence test, take two
#*Anti: there is ultimately a lack of independent sources for much of the material in these volumes, so they probably feed off each other a lot more than is acknowledged
#*Pro: That's inevitably the case with biographical data, but what matters is that there is proper checking of primary sources.
#The reliability test
#*The two sides dispute both how much checking is actually done in compiling these volumes, and how effective those checks are
#Secondary sources
#*I have not seen any dispute that these are secondary sources
;Intention arguments
#*Pro:Those directories are intended as directories of notable people, so inclusion in those directories is in itself evidence of notability, and it is not wikipedia's job to reject widely-accepted definitions of notability
#*Anti:Those directories have their own criteria for notability, which may or may not be wikipedia's criteria: we should not automatically presume that they are. In particular, Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage is evidence of notability only if one accepts the premise that peerage and baronetage are inherently notable (though that does not of course apply to Who's Who)
So there's my summary.  I've probably omitted some things and been mistaken in others, and welcome correction/clarification etc ... but please please please can we keep this discussion focused on the narrow question of which (if any) of these volumes meet the tests set out in Wikipedia:Notability#The_notability_criterion?  Thanks!  --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening statement