Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 10

message: Hi.
Perhaps maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Encyclopedicity guideline/policy instead. We've only defined what is not encyclopedic, not what is. This seems like a superior alternative to notability, since for one it does not carry the connotations of "fame", "I heard about it", etc. but rather of "what is suitable for an encyclopedia", which makes a whole lot of sense. There is presently a redirect at this page to a boiled-down WP:NOT, which is not helpful with defining what encyclopedicity is. 74.38.32.195 12:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:Please see Wikipedia:Article inclusion.  We're working on something similar to what you describe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::Took a peek, and it still points to WP:NOT for "defining" what "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" really means. We need to define what is encyclopedic -- ie. what "encyclopedic" actually means -- not what is not. Defining something by an exhaustive list of negatives is not a good idea -- it may not be something else that we haven't said there. That's what I'm going after. 74.38.32.195 12:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::You seem to know what you're talking about, so please toss some ideas in over there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::Just posted a message there to initiate the discussion. 74.38.32.195 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::I've replied to the message you left over there, so won't continue the discussion here. Walton Vivat Regina! 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::::OK. Mike4ty4 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedicity instead of notability? 

message: Since this page has been edit protected for a relatively long time now, it is time to decide how to proceed. As outlined in the original straw poll discussion thread, a wide range of options were originally presented, with a follow-up poll needed using a narrower set of options based on the results of the original poll. As the original poll showed that this guideline did not have broad consensus, and the "Discuss" option had the least support, two basic choices remain: 
#Continue editing under a disputed tag , in the hope of eventually reaching consensus through discussion and editing. 
#Declare this a failed guideline and mark it with the historical tag . 
Although some editors suggested deleting and possibly salting this page, those options should be held for a follow-up discussion only if the guideline is rejected. A number of editors also suggested the "rebuild" option, which was associated with the proposal tag ; but again, this option should be held for a follow-up discussion if the page remains active, and a proposed resolution of the dispute is produced. 
Please indicate your choice below as Disputed or Historical, and add brief comments supporting your choice. As before, please limit your comments to how to proceed with this particular page only, and make general or extended comments in another appropriate thread. 
--Dhaluza 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
===Recommendations===
* Historical — As indicated in my revised comments to the original straw poll, further work within this framework is not productive. Although the individual Notability guidelines may stand or fall on their own, this common guideline has failed to reach consensus, and is unlikely to do so. Dhaluza 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
* Course Unclear I think that we have to break new ground here.  It seems that it is easy to demonstrate that a proposal does not have consensus to become a guideline, but once a proposal becomes a guideline I don't see a clear policy specifically describing how to remove it.  It seems like the WP tradition is to favor the status quo, and deviating from that requires demonstrable consensus above a simple majority of the participants.  I believe that the consensus disagrees with the present format, but doesn't call for outright rejection.  WP consensus evaluation is specifically not a vote, so a count is not relevant.  However, the arguments for change seem far more compelling than the simplistic Keep arguments e.g., "keep because it is used", "keep and make a policy", "keep because we have nothing better."  --Kevin Murray 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*A combo of the first two.  I mean, I'm trying to make a workable alternative elsewhere, so my hope is that we'll be able to simply move on from this abomination, but consensus clearly doesn't exist for this page, but I don't know what the answer for this page is in terms of proceeding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Put on hold Redirect to Wikipedia:Article inclusion; it seems the proper course of action is to codify something policy-related in relation to AfD and then decide if we want to go above and beyond that. Nifboy 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**After mulling it over, I think this is the way to go, with a blank slate and existing policy/guidelines already integrated into the text. If there's a need to go above and beyond what's there we should work from that context instead of the current mixed bag. Nifboy 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Historical - This page doesn't have enough consensus to be a guideline.  It may have seemed like a good idea at one time to one group of people, but that time has clearly past. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Historical, but first let's work on something that would stand in its place, like jeff's version. I think the way to go is to have subject-specific guidelines deal with their own areas of expertise, with the new WP:N creating a minimum bar for ALL articles, including those that do, and those that do not, fall within the scope of the subject-specific criteria. It is also important to aim for some sort of consistency between the sub-guidelines (in whichever way that may be measured). It shouldn't be the case that some guidelines are stricter than others, where such differences are inappropriate. (However in certain cases the differences may well be appropriate.) Zunaid©® 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Comment - It seems like WP:ATT and WP:NOT give us our uniform standard, and takes the POV out of AfD.  Why do we need something else? - Peregrine Fisher 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***Because the concept of notability is different than ATT. ATT only prescribes what type of info we should include in articles. WP:N, ideally, should address what type of subjects are appropriate to write about in the first place, hence some suggestions to name it "encyclopedic suitability" or "article inclusion". Perhaps there is no good way to make standards "uniform" across different topics. A hypothetical test could be something like: "if this WP:CORP company was a person would it pass WP:BIO?" It may or may not work. *shrug* Zunaid©® 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***What he said.  WP:ATT is a collection of our core policies and how to follow them.  WP:NOT is simply a list created as time went on about how things tend to work.  Neither of them deal with notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
** I can't agree with a jungle of special case criteria.  In theory it sounds great, but these seem to develop in dark corners, become more exclusionary than inclusionary, and attract special purpose cabals.  Not to mention the confusion from overlapping purposes.  I would prefer to see one page dealing with this concept, and preferably dealing with "encyclopedic suitability." --Kevin Murray 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Disputed, or Keep as guideline - As I've said many times, some sort of clear and specific notability guideline is absolutely essential. The central criterion - multiple coverage in non-trivial independent sources - provides an objective, uniform standard for article inclusion, that isn't reliant on WP editors' subjective judgements on what is "encyclopedic". The only way I would support abolishing this guideline is if Wikipedia:Article inclusion develops into an adequate replacement. At the moment we still need WP:N. Walton Vivat Regina! 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
** Your argument for keeping this guideline doesn't follow from the current wording of the primary criterion. All it says is that if topic meets the criterion, then it is notable. It doesn't say that a topic must meet this criterion. Thus, even in its current form, it leaves much room for subjectivity as regards establishing "notability". Sancho (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*** True, but I don't see why that's a problem. There are certainly some things that are inherently notable, whether or not they meet the primary criterion. But in any case where notability is disputed, the "multiple non-trivial coverage test" provides an objective standard. Let's take the made-up example of X, a fictional student from East Nowhere, Idaho. He claims to be notable for having the world's largest collection of Pokémon cards. The article is sent to AfD. Then the notability test can be applied; if there have been several articles in mainstream newspapers about X and his vast Pokémon card collection, and these are cited in the article, then he's notable. If such coverage hasn't occurred, then he isn't notable. Without WP:N, this case would quickly degenerate into a battle between those users who think Pokémon is great and should be extensively covered on Wikipedia, and those who think it's trivial and unencyclopedic. That's why the present system is best. Walton Vivat Regina! 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****But the wording doesn't say that if a topic doesn't have the coverage, then it's not notable. It only says if you have the coverage, then you are notable. So, this guideline wouldn't give you the ability to refuse an article at all. It would still come down to a subjective decision. Sancho (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****Fair point, but I don't see what's wrong with the current version. It's true that the normal criterion is the "multiple non-trivial coverage" test, which is the one we usually apply when an article comes up for AfD. Yet at the same time, it is possible that someone or something might be notable despite not passing this test; there are some articles which do not present coverage in multiple independent sources, but which would never be sent to AfD in the first place, because their notability is self-evident. (A good example is Anakin Skywalker - all of the sources are Star Wars-related, but no one has ever nominated it for deletion. In fact, it was an FA at one stage.) It would be too rigid, therefore, to say "an article is notable only if it meets the criterion"; it works more the other way round, in that "if an article meets the criterion, then it is automatically notable". That's what the criterion is for. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll #2 

message: * Historical — As indicated in my revised comments to the original straw poll, further work within this framework is not productive. Although the individual Notability guidelines may stand or fall on their own, this common guideline has failed to reach consensus, and is unlikely to do so. Dhaluza 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
* Course Unclear I think that we have to break new ground here.  It seems that it is easy to demonstrate that a proposal does not have consensus to become a guideline, but once a proposal becomes a guideline I don't see a clear policy specifically describing how to remove it.  It seems like the WP tradition is to favor the status quo, and deviating from that requires demonstrable consensus above a simple majority of the participants.  I believe that the consensus disagrees with the present format, but doesn't call for outright rejection.  WP consensus evaluation is specifically not a vote, so a count is not relevant.  However, the arguments for change seem far more compelling than the simplistic Keep arguments e.g., "keep because it is used", "keep and make a policy", "keep because we have nothing better."  --Kevin Murray 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*A combo of the first two.  I mean, I'm trying to make a workable alternative elsewhere, so my hope is that we'll be able to simply move on from this abomination, but consensus clearly doesn't exist for this page, but I don't know what the answer for this page is in terms of proceeding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Put on hold Redirect to Wikipedia:Article inclusion; it seems the proper course of action is to codify something policy-related in relation to AfD and then decide if we want to go above and beyond that. Nifboy 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**After mulling it over, I think this is the way to go, with a blank slate and existing policy/guidelines already integrated into the text. If there's a need to go above and beyond what's there we should work from that context instead of the current mixed bag. Nifboy 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Historical - This page doesn't have enough consensus to be a guideline.  It may have seemed like a good idea at one time to one group of people, but that time has clearly past. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Historical, but first let's work on something that would stand in its place, like jeff's version. I think the way to go is to have subject-specific guidelines deal with their own areas of expertise, with the new WP:N creating a minimum bar for ALL articles, including those that do, and those that do not, fall within the scope of the subject-specific criteria. It is also important to aim for some sort of consistency between the sub-guidelines (in whichever way that may be measured). It shouldn't be the case that some guidelines are stricter than others, where such differences are inappropriate. (However in certain cases the differences may well be appropriate.) Zunaid©® 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Comment - It seems like WP:ATT and WP:NOT give us our uniform standard, and takes the POV out of AfD.  Why do we need something else? - Peregrine Fisher 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***Because the concept of notability is different than ATT. ATT only prescribes what type of info we should include in articles. WP:N, ideally, should address what type of subjects are appropriate to write about in the first place, hence some suggestions to name it "encyclopedic suitability" or "article inclusion". Perhaps there is no good way to make standards "uniform" across different topics. A hypothetical test could be something like: "if this WP:CORP company was a person would it pass WP:BIO?" It may or may not work. *shrug* Zunaid©® 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***What he said.  WP:ATT is a collection of our core policies and how to follow them.  WP:NOT is simply a list created as time went on about how things tend to work.  Neither of them deal with notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
** I can't agree with a jungle of special case criteria.  In theory it sounds great, but these seem to develop in dark corners, become more exclusionary than inclusionary, and attract special purpose cabals.  Not to mention the confusion from overlapping purposes.  I would prefer to see one page dealing with this concept, and preferably dealing with "encyclopedic suitability." --Kevin Murray 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Disputed, or Keep as guideline - As I've said many times, some sort of clear and specific notability guideline is absolutely essential. The central criterion - multiple coverage in non-trivial independent sources - provides an objective, uniform standard for article inclusion, that isn't reliant on WP editors' subjective judgements on what is "encyclopedic". The only way I would support abolishing this guideline is if Wikipedia:Article inclusion develops into an adequate replacement. At the moment we still need WP:N. Walton Vivat Regina! 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
** Your argument for keeping this guideline doesn't follow from the current wording of the primary criterion. All it says is that if topic meets the criterion, then it is notable. It doesn't say that a topic must meet this criterion. Thus, even in its current form, it leaves much room for subjectivity as regards establishing "notability". Sancho (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*** True, but I don't see why that's a problem. There are certainly some things that are inherently notable, whether or not they meet the primary criterion. But in any case where notability is disputed, the "multiple non-trivial coverage test" provides an objective standard. Let's take the made-up example of X, a fictional student from East Nowhere, Idaho. He claims to be notable for having the world's largest collection of Pokémon cards. The article is sent to AfD. Then the notability test can be applied; if there have been several articles in mainstream newspapers about X and his vast Pokémon card collection, and these are cited in the article, then he's notable. If such coverage hasn't occurred, then he isn't notable. Without WP:N, this case would quickly degenerate into a battle between those users who think Pokémon is great and should be extensively covered on Wikipedia, and those who think it's trivial and unencyclopedic. That's why the present system is best. Walton Vivat Regina! 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****But the wording doesn't say that if a topic doesn't have the coverage, then it's not notable. It only says if you have the coverage, then you are notable. So, this guideline wouldn't give you the ability to refuse an article at all. It would still come down to a subjective decision. Sancho (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****Fair point, but I don't see what's wrong with the current version. It's true that the normal criterion is the "multiple non-trivial coverage" test, which is the one we usually apply when an article comes up for AfD. Yet at the same time, it is possible that someone or something might be notable despite not passing this test; there are some articles which do not present coverage in multiple independent sources, but which would never be sent to AfD in the first place, because their notability is self-evident. (A good example is Anakin Skywalker - all of the sources are Star Wars-related, but no one has ever nominated it for deletion. In fact, it was an FA at one stage.) It would be too rigid, therefore, to say "an article is notable only if it meets the criterion"; it works more the other way round, in that "if an article meets the criterion, then it is automatically notable". That's what the criterion is for. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommendations

message: i am writing about Peter Anderson, and it keeps getting deleted. He is real!
Jodie kennedy 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about Peter Anderson (footballer)? - Peregrine Fisher 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you keep deleting my things? 

message: Given that this thing is approaching half a meg, would anyone object to siccing Werdnabot on it? Anyone archiving by hand is braver than I. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archival set at threads that have been dead for a week? Moreschi  Request a recording? 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, since no one seems to object. If anyone does object, please remove the header, or post here and I will. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Werdnabot code, since it's broken and doesn't seem likely to get fixed anytime soon. I put in a request for Miszabot to do the archiving instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werdnabot 

message: Hi.
The big problem, unfortunately, is that no matter how good a guideline we can make, if nobody follows it and instead sticks to homebrew definitions, it does no good. mike4ty4 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No guideline is every going to cover all eventualities. Even policies are open to interpretation. As the legal maxim says, hard cases make bad law, so any attempt to construct a framework that covers absolutely everything is unlikely to succeed. Even this apparently simple guideline has all manner of unintended consequences (and I don't mean deleting Abel and Baker, or Isabella V, neither of which were a huge blow to the project). The best we can hope to produce is a guideline that works most of the time. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that AFD is always going to be full of hard cases. We have speedy deletion, proposed deletion, redirects, merges, and fixup to deal with the vast majority of material that isn't "encyclopedic". What's left is bound to be problematic. I don't imagine that any guideline would make AFD simple and predictable. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, the thing is, if they don't even follow a rule even in the slightest, and substitute homebrew definitions left and right, which is what seems to happen on AFD, it is horrible. That's what I'm talking about -- I'm not talking about "once in a blue moon" disputes, with everything else otherwise proceeding to follow the guideline, but where the majority of AFDs do NOT follow it. Also, "encyclopedic" still needs to be defined, even if a totally rigid, 100% infallible definition is impossible, since we do not need that. We need one that is sufficiently reliable, not perfect. How good do you think all the inclusion guidelines, including WP:N, are here on WP, anyway? mike4ty4 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem 

message: Sounds ugly, could we maybe just list the options and address things in stages?  Sounds to me like it boils down to two paths.  If Choice 1 is true then we don't need to discuss the issues related to Choice 2.  If  Choice 2 is true then discussing Choice 1 just clouds a complex issue.  
* Choice 1 Wikipedia:Notability is not needed other policies and guidelines  address the same topics well.  No other similar policy is required   
* Choice 2 Wikipedia:Notability is needed Notability is significantly different then other policies and guidelines.  It may need to be changed or renamed but it needs to exist as a separate entity.
Signed Jeepday 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Why do we need a higher bar than "can an encylopedia-quality article be written on this topic"? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:We don't.  This page doesn't really say anything that WP:ATT doesn't already cover. - Peregrine Fisher 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::Except that WP:ATT doesn't cover notability.  This is why I'm proposing Wikipedia:Article inclusion, a page that does not conflict with ATT while pointing people in the direction of inclusion on the grounds of notability for specific subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::How is this page different? - Peregrine Fisher 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::This page asserts primacy, and asserts that notability is only achieved by a specific occurance, rather than how notability is actually achieved.  WP:Article inclusion merely says that articles have to meet certain standards to be included, and points users to the specific guidelines for attribution, NPOV, and notability for the subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:Because it is an encyclopedia, not a databases of everything. And also because what you just said will be open to interpretation and abuse by whoever wants to. Anyone can write an "encyclopedia-quality" biographical entry on themselves using only verifiable information (population register, official school board results, university records, company records, tax records, vehicle registration database, accident records, flight records, court records, marriage records, etc.). And of course there's my current bugbear: using an encyclopedia as a newspaper because news is almost by definition multiply sourced. I agree with jeff, notability is a necessary bar that sits above ATT, and yes, this page SHOULD say things that ATT doesn't. Zunaid©® 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::BS. If it contains no analysis or context, only descriptive claims, it's insufficient for our purposes (and that's all you'll get from databases).  I still don't see why we need to exclude stories just because they happen to be news.  From 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake to Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, we've got Featured articles about all sorts of news events.  Wesley Autrey isn't going to have lasting historical impact, but his story is worth having.  Quantity is not a reason for exclusion, only quality. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake has notability beyond being a news story, it is the largest natural disaster in recent years. Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is hardly as notable, and it survives on Wikipedia mainly by virtue of being an excellently written article; a stub article on the same subject would probably have been deleted (For clarity: I am not suggesting that anyone nominate it for deletion). Sure, some events are notable because they produce not only a news story but form a lasting impact which resonates in many different fora, the Colbert speech apparently caused waves on the internet as well as many locations in various other media. But the majority of news stories don't have this kind of impact on society, and they are therefore not as notable. In general notability for an event in the context of an encyclopeda means stuff which has had a profound and/or long lasting impact in some way for a significant number of people. For a newspaper, even though it's paper, the notability standard is considerably lower and will cover things which only matter there and then. Take for instance this article in the State about an upcoming concert. I doubt that 2007 Kenny Chesney concert in Columbia, South Carolina is a notable topic, even though we have an independent medium covering it. And it would not be encyclopedically notable if we had four other newspapers covering it either. For the newspaper on the other hand, it is a significant part of today's local cultural scene, and it is therefore noteworthy for them, and that is perhaps why the newspaper noted it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::And that's why the subject-specific guidelines handle it better than an all-encompassing one.  A random Kenny Chesney concert isn't going to meet a music guideline - or, more importantly, people interested in music articles aren't generally going to write one given the standards they've spent time working on - but it certainly would meet a one-size-fits-all guideline.  It works in both directions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::some concerts are worth including, though.  So where and how are we drawing our bar?  Hint: It's not "importance" or "significance." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::::That would be up to consensus at the specific page, I would assume. My personal bar is similar to where the current line appears to be, but the overlying point is that a one-size-fits-all notability guideline/policy fails to properly address things like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::::What would be wrong with having an article on an individual concert, if it had thorough, non-trivial detail and analysis, for example? We have articles on individual football games.  The press coverage listed would make for barely a sentence (some fans camped out before the concert).  We need more to write a decent article.  The issue isn't the number of sources, it's the depth. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::::It's a one-size-fits all by virtue of being vague about specific standards, and we can narrow it down I think in an objective manner. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::::::Actually, individual football matches might be a better example of the kind of thing which gets extensive coverage in the newspaper, and little to no coverage in Wikipedia. Every time S.K. Brann plays a league game, both Bergens Tidende and Bergensavisen will provide an extensive coverage of the match, often taking up three or four pages, with a description of events, the yellow and red cards which were handed out, the goals scored, a rating for each of the players, and a description of what the team's status in their league now is. If the game was against Rosenborg BK we could also expect an equivalent coverage in Adresseavisen. The "primary notability criterion" is easily met, and there is no trouble in making an extensive article about the game based on the sources. Even so, Wikipedia has a grand total of zero articles on individual football matches in the Norwegian Premier League, and I think any such article would be deleted without much fanfare on AFD, for the precise reason that a single game has no serious impact outside the tournament there and then. From an encyclopedic viewpoint, the game is not notable. But from a news journalist's viewpoint, the football match is the single most important sports event in town that particular day, so it receives a prominent spot in the sports pages in the newspaper on that particular day. But a newspaper is a "read it today, paper recycling bin tomorrow" type of publication, very unlike an encyclopedia. Things of local interest which matter only there and then are quite suitable for newspapers, becuase they are supposed to satisfy the reader's interest for what happens there and then. Notability in a newspaper is not meant to be lasting in the same way notability in an encyclopedia is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::::::2006 Rose Bowl, for one.   But if an event has been covered sufficiently in the past, even if it doesn't have particularly lasting effects, why not have an article on it?  Nothing important ever happened because of the Tsar tank. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::::::::That was the BCS championship game and quite likely the most important and notable college football game of the year. Why wouldn't it have an article? ChazBeckett 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::::::::Indeed, being the final game in a major tournament is what grants that subject notability. Regarding the Tsar tank, that equipment is part of military history where we aim to be comprehensive. The weaponry used at various times is a significant and notable part of this coverage and of interest to a student of history, and therefore we have articles on such items. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Why not aim to be comprehensive anywhere we can meet our standards? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:I agree with Night Gyr. If there really is enough coverage for a comprehensive article on a sports game (NOT just a directory stub stating the score and maybe a few quick statistics and highlights), why shouldn't we have an article on it? However, this should be looked at much like the perspective of WP:FICT. Our main goal should be to explain the game's significance to the outside world, not write the article from an "in-universe" ("in-game"?) perspective. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::Right, which is something WP:N handles poorly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::I think the primary notability criterion is actually a good bar for that.  The trouble is coming when people try to work higher bars (that ought to be inclusionary ones) into notability as exclusionary criteria to meet their personal subjectivity. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)  
::How would you define a "comprehensive article" on a sports game? Take NBA games for example. Each one results in loads of statistical data, game recaps, interviews and articles (local, regional, national newspapers, etc). Should we really have an article on all 1500+ games that occur in one season? ChazBeckett 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8) 
:::I hate the quantity argument -- it's explicitly contrary to WP:NOT#PAPER.  Potential quantity of articles is not now and never will be a prohibition on including a particular type of article.  As for games, I think the scope of a single game is too narrow for proper depth.  Seasonal articles seem to have been the recent trend.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::(In response to ChazBeckett) A comprehensive article on a game would be similar to a comprehensive article on anything, and I think WP:FICT could be very informative here. Just as a comprehensive article on a fictional work should focus mainly on its "real-world" importance, not be just (or mainly) a plot summary, and focus mostly on its importance in a wider scope, a comprehensive article on a sports game should focus on its "out-of-game" impact, be significantly more then just a game recap and/or list of stats (though these may be appropriate in the context of the full article), and so on. Could this be done for every sports game? Doubt it. But if it can be done for any given one, why shouldn't we have it? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::I think it's important to get an idea of the scope of what would be created, which means that the potential number of articles does need to be mentioned. In general, I agree that an individual game shouldn't have an article, unless there's something special about it (championship game, for example). ChazBeckett 08:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Actually, I think a better example would be films.  Numerous films are released to theaters every year.  Many are forgettable, mediocre, insignificant in the scheme of things.  But we have articles on them anyway.  Why?  Because we can cite numerous sources - reviews, box office takings, cast interviews, dvd commentary - that we can synthesize into an encyclopedic article about films that no one will have heard of a hundred years from now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:I agree with Gyr that WP:N should reflect a minimal standard.  It should basically say that "if an article fails to meet even this bare minimum standard of reference quality and quantity then it should as a general rule be improved or deleted."  Articles that barely meet this minimal bar might still be deleted, though, based on concerns that fall beyond the scope of this guideline.  For WP:N to enjoy the strongest consensus among editors, I feel it should reflect those minimal sourcing requirements that almost all the editors can agree on.  Gyr is correct that attempting to make WP:N more than minimally restrictive simply results in those restrictive portions not enjoying strong consensus. 
:I disagree with Gyr that the concept of "an encyclopedia quality article" is sufficient standard.  As noted above, you can write verifiable lenghty articles about all sorts of things that would be routinely deleted, such as regular season sports games and local crimes and events.  It's not just a question of eliminating "perma stubs", but also of weeding out some of the articles that have at best fleeting usefulness and interest and whose presence makes editorial maintainence and reader navigation more problematic.  Yes, there is no "physical limit" on the number of articles, but that doesn't imply it's a good idea to have millions of articles of questionable sourcing and use. Dugwiki 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::You said "of questionable sourcing and use" -- what about of good sourcing? If that is not a high enough bar, then what is? We're talking about well-sourced topics -- which still may not be encyclopedic. Perhaps it might be a good idea to take a page from paper encyclopedias -- maybe we should look at all sorts of published encyclopedias, see what criteria they use for inclusion, average it all out, tweak it to suit WP's purposes, and trot out a new inclusion guideline/policy based on that. 74.38.32.195 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::This is possibly bad. Wikipedia covers many topics that other encyclopedias don't. However, what we CAN gain is some sort of idea on the standards of inclusion to apply. I'm of the school of thought that certain things are inherently encyclopedic (geographical features, chemical compounds, towns), certain things are inherently inappropriate material for an encyclopedia (run-of-the-mill news stories, TV episodes and sports games) and everything else has to prove their worth by meeting certain standards (companies, bands, websites, significant news stories, TV episodes and sports games). Zunaid©® 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::What's wrong with writing a quality article about a local crime?  You say it would be routinely deleted, but I don't see any justification in policy for such a deletion.  A small town might have its only murder in years, and the thing would be covered out the wazoo.  We could certainly turn all that into a quality article, and I don't see any policy reason why we shouldn't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still don't get it 

message: I just found this phrase on a place calling this link "\{\{Notability\}\}":
"If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability, citing reliable sources. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. (See also Wikipedia:Notability)"
But  I think you mean "more than likely"  rather than "more likely" because there is no target for the comparison suggested by "more". Carrionluggage 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly a different meaning is desired 

message: What's up with all the footnotes?  That stuff belongs in the main body of the page. — Omegatron 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It’s part of I called pseudoscholarship.  Maybe I should have said “very drafty”.  The guideline is in poor form, written poorly, not saying what people think it says, not clear as to what it means to say.  For how long is the page to remain protected in this form, as a guideline purporting to reflect consensus?   SmokeyJoe 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: ...that discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Article inclusion, which may act as a possible replacement of this page altogether.  Please hop on over and give your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: any idea on how to merge them, because I think they are not going in the same direction--the trend of discussion there seems to be saying V is the only rule. DGG 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The desire is that WP:AI will replace this.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Any higher bar runs into subjectivity problems.  Most of the stuff that people want to keep out with other barriers isn't really a problem at all or would be kept out by a properly written guideline rooted in policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Probably not going to get a lot of play with this comment, but shouldn't we close down Notability and Article inclusion and take all of this over to WP:NOT?  There's the actual policy that keeps out articles not fit for an encyclopedia. - Peregrine Fisher 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because as a policy, it has to be written extremely strictly.  Guidelines are more flexible, and "what articles can be included" is a topic with many gray areas. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT is definitely not good enough on its own - although in theory it excludes "non-encyclopedic" content, the definition of what is "encyclopedic" is entirely subjective and depends on editors' own opinions. WP:N is necessary because it provides an objective, definite criterion that can be applied at AfD - it says that something is notable if it has "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources". I have no problem with WP:AI in principle, but the present draft of that guideline is simply too vague, and I really don't see what's wrong with the existing guideline. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Flexible about "what articles can be included," sounds like "I like it/I don't like it" opinion.  Now if WP:N just said "multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources" it would be WP:A, wouldn't it?  Using WP:N to pass the buck to sub-pages about books, music, etc. is just more opinion, though. - Peregrine Fisher 09:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not, which has been explained to you over there.  And no, if WP:N said that, it wouldn't be WP:A, it would be something much more that doesn't work in reality.  Please read the archives here for numerous examples. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A second notice... 

message: What type food can be notable? Any type? I noticed lot of sweet foods. So can I write any article about sweet cofectionary? What about other type of food (spicy)? I didn't find any food notability. I want to know more.--NAHID 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food Notability 

message: As suggested in the Consensus topic earlier, I propose that instead of manual judgement about whether a subject is notable or not, we should instead base notability on how frequently it is accessed or edited. Wikipedia is now a sufficiently commonly-used tool that accesses are likely a good indication of how many people seek knowledge about a topic. If enough people seek information on a subject, who has the right to say that it is not sufficiently notable when clearly there are a fair number of people who are taking notice of it? Thus I suggest that the only measure of notability which should be utilised in Wikipedia is the number of accesses to a page.
I would, in fact, suggest that an automated method should be devised - either through bot or underlying code - which automatically nominates for deletion articles which are receiving insufficient traffic. There should be a grace period of a week or two in which the deletion can be appealed on the basis that the subject is notable but not widely known, and any appeals should be reviewed by the administrators who can put a manual stay on deletions based on notability of any article. Lacking an appeal (or on rejection of an appeal), articles should be deleted (preferably automatically, to lessen the load on the administrators).
This approach would remove most of the superfluous articles on Wikipedia, put far less of a burden on editors and administrators, and prevent the misuse of the notability criteria that we see today. Some few articles would likely be caught up in the system which shouldn't, but those which should really have been kept can always be appealed through the current deletion review system. -Xiroth 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:Hit counters have already been suggested and rejected by the developers as too hard on the servers, so hit counters with automated processes to examine them are not likely to fly any farther. This aside, though, that's not a good idea at all. I imagine many historical topics and the like are not visited very frequently, but are quite notable. This would cause a tremendous degree of systemic bias, and "wikibombing" would become the next googlebombing (Want to keep your junk article? Set up a bot to visit it frequently!) I wish deletion could be boiled down to automation, but unfortunately I think it can't be. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::Hmm, the concept doesn't necessarily need hit counters - recent frequency is what needs to be assessed, rather than absolute figures over the lifetime of the article, and there are some relatively efficient methods of counting that (one could even assess frequency over the lifetime of the article without a huge resource load). I would suggest that the requirements to maintain a place would not be much higher than the minimum access frequency caused by the assorted bots which access Wikipedia pages, so historical events with any notability at all should be kept (I know that I frequently read through historical subjects, and I would expect that there are a reasonable number of other users who also do so). I would not expect a huge number of articles to be maintained by bot-masters which would otherwise be discarded - the number would be relatively small compared to the number of non-notable articles in Wikipedia's databases today. On the other hand, while I would prefer an automated solution, the alternative is, of course, to have those articles which drop below the required frequency to become vulnerable to a manual nomination of AfD for notability reasons. -Xiroth 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::I'd still be very concerned about systemic bias, as well as automated "keeping" of articles which violate WP:5P regardless. Notability is not popularity, and it shouldn't be. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::If they violate other rules, then they should be nominated for deletion under those rules. Notability is not the only grounds for deletion, but as things stand it seems to be becoming too big a catch-all for articles which individual editors want to see deleted. -Xiroth
:::::I guess I fail to see what the new system would change, then? The only thing I can see it doing is changing notability into a popularity contest (which it is not and should not be), and other then that, things get nominated and debated as normal, while placing increased load on the servers. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::::The new system changes only how notability is utilised - it certainly shouldn't have any impact on how any other policy is enforced. It would be there essentially to clean up the least used articles which add nothing to the encyclopedia, as opposed to the current notability guidline which is routinely used to delete regularly visited and used articles which are deemed non-notable purely through editors' personal opinion. Notability is not a popularity contest, but we currently have no reliable way of judging what is and isn't notable, so my suggestion is that we delete the clearly non-notable articles and assess the others on their merits under other rules and guidelines. -Xiroth 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::::Hrmmmm. Well, I guess there'd be no harm in a bot that went through and, for example, looked for articles that hadn't been edited in over a month. There would be false positives that way (some articles are in good shape and just stable), but that certainly might find a good deal of junk that was "drive-by" created, slipped through newpage patrol, and could be prodded or speedied as appropriate. Might also find some articles that are viable and really could use some attention, or would make useful redirects or merges. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::::::That might be a good idea.  Having articles that nobody is paying any attention to is how you get the Siegenthaler scandal; it would be good to have a way to identify those.  I'd actually be much more interested in how many active users' watchlists an article is on, rather than how many edits it gets -- as you say, some articles are just stable -- but I don't think that can be measured without a significant software change. —Celithemis 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:This approach would remove the very articles that put the least strain on Wikipedia's resources. Bryan Derksen 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::The point remains, though - if information is frequently accessed and does not disobey any other Wikipedia rules or guidelines, then is it not somewhat illogical to consider it non-notable based purely on opinion? -Xiroth 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::What is your point? Notability is not popularity. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::True. But if an article is being visted frequently and matches all the other policies and guidelines, who is qualified to say that it is not notable? On the other hand, few accesses makes a strong case that the information is not commonly required - which does not say that it is definitely not notable, but makes a strong suggestion of it. -Xiroth 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:This also seems to be a way to ensure that WP:BIAS is never overcome.  Using the example pointed out on WP:BIAS: Jennifer Wilbanks (29 edits in past four months), and  Bernard Makuza (3 edits in past four months).  Removing from the database because of lack of edits is not going to help the situation. Neier 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::As far as automated removal goes, I would only advocate that the most infrequently visited articles are deleted in this manner. There could then be a 'grey area' in which articles could be nominated for deletion on notability grounds if they are accessed with a low frequency but so low that they are definitely not being useful. Any article outside this grey area would be immune to nominations on notability grounds, and any AfD nominations must be on other grounds (such as unencyclopedic content). This should prevent most systemic bias problems (at least, in the automated deletion area). -Xiroth 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:The problem, unfortunately or not, with this proposal is that it does not go with the goals of notability, which is to guarantee that sufficient reliable, attributable material exists to write a neutral article based on information published independently of Wikipedia that is sufficiently comprehensive to be encyclopedic. For example, if only one reliable source exists on some topic that gives only a couple of sentences about it, that's woefully too little information to write a good article (or for that matter, any sort of article at all. To me an article is more than just a couple of brief sentences.). An interesting idea I might propose is that "notability" could mean that the subject has been reported on enough so that there is enough material that an article created on it stands a reasonable chance of becoming a good or featured article in the future, although this may be too restrictive and hard to determine exacting criteria for (ie. too subjective). 74.38.32.195 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::To be honest, we don't need a notability policy to cover that. We already have policies which say that articles must be verifiable and if, as you suggest, we should require multiple sources (which I wouldn't be opposed to), that should be required in the WP:ATT policy, not in an extra one. Notability, on the other hand, is by its very nature far too subjective to be a useful requirement unless we can impose some kind of objective method of measuring it. -Xiroth 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::Then why don't we quantitatively define it? In another post here I point out the necessity for a general notability criterion to "take up the slack" from where the subject-specific criteria do not apply. I'll just toss some proposals out here for fun, what do you think?:
:::* A topic can be considered notable if there are at least two reliable sources documenting the topic each devoting at least one thousand (1,000) words in each, including all numbers unrelated to formatting (like lists, etc.), and with hyphenated words counted as single words where grammatically appropriate (like "nick-nack" versus "divis-ion", with the latter being on a line break if our source is in print) with each covering a distinct, major view on the topic (see WP:NPOV).
:::* A topic can be considered notable if it garners at least one thousand (1,000) hits on Google after compensating for redundancy, all of which are from at least fifty (50) independent organizations with no copying of coverage, and which do not, taken together, only describe a single point of view, if possible (again, see WP:NPOV).
:::What do you think? Note: these are not 100% serious proposals, but they are more "quantitative" as in having hard numbers attached to them. 74.38.32.195 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:I had added a DelRev tag on Mark Bellinghaus, but Tyrenius removed it because I didn't have it linked properly (my bad!) Bellinghaus Mmmovie is the perfect example of why Wiki NEEDS to define "Notability" and enforce a Notability policy! Bellinghaus is a sometimes-actor who fanices himself a Marilyn Monroe expert. He has done nothing of note himself. Worse, he has not only hijacked the Monroe article, he created an account specifically to promote his agenda. I told Tyrenius that Wiki is not the place for that! The thing that makes Wiki great is it's greatest weakness. Anyone with an account can start an article on him/herself. That is abuse! If I may be so bold, "Notability" should also not be defined as someone who is related to someone of note. Walter Gretzky may be a lovely man, but he is notable solely for supplying half of Wayne Gretzky's DNA. Ditto for other parents, children, spouses or siblings who wouldn't have Wiki articles were it not for their famous relative. Is Albert II, Prince of Monaco's son Alexandre Coste deserving of an article? Maybe if or when he succeeds his father; until then I'd say it should be deleted. Worc63 23:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New measure for notability 

message: I really don't see what's wrong with the existing primary criterion of WP:N. Where notability is in question, it can be established by demonstrating multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Because this is an absolute standard (except for those articles that fall in special categories), it ensures fair and equal treatment for all articles, rather than relying on Wikipedia editors' subjective judgements. WP:NOT is not enough on its own; whether or not an article constitutes a "directory entry", "vanity page" or "dicdef" is entirely a matter of opinion, and basically boils down to either WP:IDONTKNOWIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fundamentally, if the subject of an article has received multiple coverage in the mainstream media or in reference books, then they are by definition notable. If they haven't, then they probably aren't notable. What's so confusing or problematic about that? Walton Vivat Regina! 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
: Walton, the most common problems are (1) the term "non-trivial" can not be defined objectively and is a source for dispute at XfD, and (2) there is a dispute over whether a single substantial source could by itself demonstrate notability in some circumstances.  Then there is also the dispute over whether WP needs to limit itself to notability or a similar concept in general.  The term "notability" itself is difficult to define without using equally subjective synonyms.  I'm from the camp that believes there should be some objective standard for what is suitable for an encyclopedia, but don't believe that the standard need be too high, but should be high enough to eliminate vanity fluff, garage bands, and spam. --Kevin Murray 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:The point in this debate is simple - WP:N, as written, fails to comprehend the idea of "notability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:: Can you briefly describe how you comprehend notability? --Kevin Murray 13:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::No, I can't.  No one can, that's part of the problem - notability is inherently subjective, and means different things for different people in different subjects.  We can't solve the first part, but we can come to compromises in the second.  This guideline assumes neither the former or latter exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::It would be fair to here state that all of reality is subjective.  No it isn't! Yes it is! No it isn't!.  On another note, we do not need to try to define every single term we use.  We can, for the most part, point to the dictionary.  Individual article issues on notability can be taken up in AfD as they always are.  We don't need to address the remaining ten percent.  We just address the ninety percent, and leave the rest fuzzy. Wjhonson 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::Leaving the rest fuzzy leaves too many poor decisions open to improper results.  Please see the obviously notable articles that fail to meet this standard in the archives - keep in mind that many still don't reach the slightly rewritten standard as it reads now.  The proper course of action should be to depreciate this entirely, and say "Notability is how we generally decide what is verifiable and worth including.  For subjects that deal with X, see X.  For subjects that deal with Y, see Y. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::::The only problem with that is, there'll always be some Z that doesn't have a written guideline governing it specifically.  It leads to proliferation of guideline pages.  (And what do we do when people simply can't agree about how to judge the notability of X or Y?)  I think it's a good idea to have a basic "default" to go by, distilling the most common indicators of notability.  And, for our purposes, I think that often does boil down to multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources.  It might suffice to note that there could be exceptions (with a few examples), and point to the subject-specific guidelines, where they exist. Shimeru 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::::::There's nothing wrong with a proliferation of such pages, and our purposes generally do not boil down to that.  Please see my proposal below, I think it addresses your concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::If you claim this, everything is subjective to some degree. Even NPOV is somewhat subjective -- that's why we get into NPOV disputes, because people have conflicting ideas of what NPOV really is in detail. Some may say "if it says X then it is neutral." then someone else may say "NO!!! It has to be *Y* to be neutral." and so a dispute begins. But people have a general idea of the concept, and the page WP:NPOV lays out some rules to trace borders around the concept and give that general idea, even if the minutiae may be quibbled over -- and thus eventually a consensus can be reached that agrees with WP's goals. If with N there is no general concept it cannot work -- it becomes a total free-for-all. We should be trying to stop WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, not trying to promote them. Doing otherwise only serves to undermine the quality of the encyclopedia, make it look silly and unprofessional, and veers it away from it's stated goal of being an encyclopedia since essentially anything would then be game for inclusion and deletion. If we scrap the general guideline (WP:N) and use only the subject-specific guidelines, then what happens when they do not cover something? Like pets, for example. If I write a cute little article on my little doggie, it goes to AFD, and everybody reads it and says "Keep. I like it, it's cute." and it gets accepted, then WP becomes a joke! If we're going to let that type of argument in, why not just scrap all rules and let everyone write whatever the heck they want?! Obviously that is not acceptable. 74.38.32.195 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:Simply, this goes straight to Wiki's credibility as a information source. Anyone with an account can create an article, which is fine depending on the legitimacy of the article. That's why you note that the month pages forbids you from listing your birthday or what date your grandpa died. Unfortunately, the temptation for some to launch an article on themselves or their grandpa may be too much to resist! Worc63 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point in this debate? 

message: An educator at a school was recently charged with a crime, as reported in reliable newspapers. To what extent is this relevant to the article on the school? Should organizations get some degree of protection similar to BLP? Gimmetrow 06:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, organizations do not deserve the protection of BLP.  Organizations are not natural people and have fundamentally different rights and protections both under the law and in the common perception.  BLP recognizes that some issues are so potentially risky that we compromise our normal editing processes.  Those same degrees of risk do not apply to organizations.  That said, most such controversies and crimes are excludable under the proposed WP:NOTNEWS guideline.  That kind of content is better presented in WikiNews, not Wikipedia.  To mention a current controversy in an encyclopedia article, we really ought to be looking for sources about the encyclopedic influence of the controversy or crime - national policy-shifts or new legislation that arose as a direct result.  The mere existence of the crime, even if provably true, does not automatically merit its inclusion in an encyclopedia article.  Rossami (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying BLP applies to an organisation, but it seems somehow tangential to the organisation that one of its employees was charged with a crime. The person charged is not really notable - not like Ken Lay who is appropriately mentioned in the list of University of Houston people. WP:NOTNEWS is marked as rejected, so it can't really be cited here. It is reported, so it's attributable. What else applies? Gimmetrow 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current news events 

message: Wikipedia:Notability (science) is a recent proposal which has received little attention pro or con, but it is being advocated for immediate adoption as a guideline.  Please join the discussion.  It seems redundant to me, but should be considered within the notability scheme. --Kevin Murray 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (science)]] should this be a guideline? 

message: I have again deleted * "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.  
The "Non-triviality" assertion is not supported by the given citation, “notability” in the OED.  As cited, the entry is clearly false.
The attempted redefinition of “trivial” and “notable” is, I think, the underlying cause of confusion over what WP:N says, and what it means to say.   SmokeyJoe 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-triviality" 

message: I'm very wary to make a change to the tag based on a straw poll, so I'll bring it here first: It's apparent to me that there's no consensus for this to be a guideline right now, so what should we do in the interim while we discuss the options? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I think, that both articles reach the same basic practical conclusions.  The main differences are in some details on how the articles reach those conclusions, such as their relative emphasis on "notability" and "substantive articles", and in how various things are phrased, etc.  Based on the comments so far at WP:INCLUSION I'm guessing that the two will be merged, although under which name I'm not sure yet.  That would depend on which version appears to have the better overall structure, I think.  For my part I'm just watching the discussion at WP:INCLUSION right now and thinking of it as a "proposed rewrite" for WP:N.  The talk page thread WP:INCLUSION#WP:N and WP:AI has some good back and forth on what the two articles agree upon and what the differences are. I'm probably going to keep most of my comments over there, so that the WP:N talk page doesn't get too cluttered with things related to the merger.  Dugwiki 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To be consistent with all the other subject specific notability guideline proposals which an editor recently tagged as "rejected" because he felt there was no consensus, what makes this one immune to the same tagging on the same theory? Sure would result in a lot more crappy articles being kept in deletion debates for lack of any guideline to point to that they fail to satisfy. Edison 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that  is too easy to apply, and maybe a consensus should be required.  It is a dramatic thing to decide to give up.  I’m suggesting a modified , see Template_talk:Rejected.  Am I trying to talk in the wrong place?  SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD is a pretty dreary place, and the last thing it needs is more crappy articles, but I think that you are completely wrong about WP:N keeping crap out of it.  The worst of the crappy articles are completely sourceless.  They fail WP:ATT.  Unfortunately, they are being deleted for failing WP:N, and nobody knows what WP:N means, certainly not the new contributors who write the crappy articles.  If WP:N were not useful as an argument in AfD, then people would be forced to refer to policy.  I’d prefer to see deletion arguments along the lines of: “no sources”, “no reliable sources”, or “the entire content is not really based on the attributed source”.  Such arguments would serve to educate contributors what’s really needed, where references to a nebulous “notability” don’t.  SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Edison, One reason is that this is a guideline not a proposal, where there are different standards for tagging.  --Kevin Murray 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Joe, it seems that most of your changes are being adopted here.  Do you object to the current version?  I feel that your modifications just before protection make this much better than the older version(s).  I'd like to see this trimmed about 30% in verbiage and then would support.  --Kevin Murray 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do object to the current version.  There are multiple problems.  While I suggest far above to discard, a lot of people don’t want to discard.  I recognise that there is a lot of good intention invested here.  Perhaps the situation is not as irretrievable as I think, so I am attempting to make improvements according to what I think is an excellent methodology to be found at Wikipedia:Consensus.  I too can see use useful trimming to be done.   SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status 

message: From discussions well above, it is clear to me that WP:N does not have consensus as a guideline, and indeed never did.  The most appropriate tag at this stage would be , to remain in place until it takes a form that is a realistic proposal for consensus.   is useful in the interim to help prevent the frequent misuse for AfD of the argument, without elaboration: “fails WP:N”.   SmokeyJoe 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be consistent with all the other subject specific notability guideline proposals which an editor recently tagged as "rejected" because he felt there was no consensus, what makes this one immune to the same tagging on the same theory? Sure would result in a lot more crappy articles being kept in deletion debates for lack of any guideline to point to that they fail to satisfy. Edison 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that  is too easy to apply, and maybe a consensus should be required.  It is a dramatic thing to decide to give up.  I’m suggesting a modified , see Template_talk:Rejected.  Am I trying to talk in the wrong place?  SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD is a pretty dreary place, and the last thing it needs is more crappy articles, but I think that you are completely wrong about WP:N keeping crap out of it.  The worst of the crappy articles are completely sourceless.  They fail WP:ATT.  Unfortunately, they are being deleted for failing WP:N, and nobody knows what WP:N means, certainly not the new contributors who write the crappy articles.  If WP:N were not useful as an argument in AfD, then people would be forced to refer to policy.  I’d prefer to see deletion arguments along the lines of: “no sources”, “no reliable sources”, or “the entire content is not really based on the attributed source”.  Such arguments would serve to educate contributors what’s really needed, where references to a nebulous “notability” don’t.  SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Edison, One reason is that this is a guideline not a proposal, where there are different standards for tagging.  --Kevin Murray 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Joe, it seems that most of your changes are being adopted here.  Do you object to the current version?  I feel that your modifications just before protection make this much better than the older version(s).  I'd like to see this trimmed about 30% in verbiage and then would support.  --Kevin Murray 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do object to the current version.  There are multiple problems.  While I suggest far above to discard, a lot of people don’t want to discard.  I recognise that there is a lot of good intention invested here.  Perhaps the situation is not as irretrievable as I think, so I am attempting to make improvements according to what I think is an excellent methodology to be found at Wikipedia:Consensus.  I too can see use useful trimming to be done.   SmokeyJoe 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suitable tag

message: I've noticed articles about Marketing, Management, Human resource management, Chemistry, Economics, Media and other similar topics are existed in wiki. Can any user write something new about these topics (Or totally new)? How can user judges its notability? Thanks--NAHID 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I've added the disputed tag.  I'm aware this may open an edit war, in fact it already seems to have.  That's not my intent.  But I think anyone objecting to it needs to re-read this talk page.  I did not agree with the way this page was protected, nor the length of time it was protected for, but this talk page clearly demonstrates that this guidance is in dispute.  The page should reflect that.  When a consensus is built in support for the guidance offered, or the guidance is amended to reflect a consensus, then remove the tag.  Adding the tag will help drive people to participate in building the consensus and will reflect the situation. Hiding Talk  08:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I took Smokey Joe's lead and condensed it.  Hopefully for more clarity along with brevity.  I removed the assertion that primary research can be used in the articles; this seems to conflict with higher level WP policy, although it seems reasonable to have some exceptions clarified in the detail sections below.  Please consider helping this idea to evolve rather than reverting.  Joe was bold, so I've been bold, hoping to fine tune his work without losing the spirit.  --Kevin Murray 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Lead paragraphs 

message: Back in February, WP:ORG was merged into WP:CORP . The merger occurred with no resolution of the wording of the former Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). The issue of "notabilty" for non-commercial organizations remains unresolved. Given that the final determination of the guideline may affect many articles and that WP:ORG/WP:CORP is oft-cited in AfDs, it would be helpful if more than a handful of editors participated in the discussion. Agent 86 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]] 

message: Seeing that many article that deleted is due to lack of english sources, I propose the following
*Sources must be from a creditable, english sources'
I know that it violated world view; however, many AFD, based upon WP:N (and inclusive, including WP:PORNBIO), got approved this way. No matter how we see this, the use of WP:N need to be rehaul, particularly when dealing with articles that is very popular or notable in other places
Reasons that we need to clarify:
*We cannot assume the policy can apply to all countries. For example, Japanese culture make what constitute as reference very different from how we reference.
*It provide an easier way to verify sources
The main reason this argument is brought up is due to the need to save ourself future trouble when it comes time to defend or propose AFD. George Leung 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God no.  Horrible, horrible idea.  Systematic bias in the worst possible way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Require addition: English based 

message: There has been lively discussion following page protection, and I think it is time to move the question. A few suggestions for a straw poll have been proposed above, and I have combined and modified them somewhat. I think the main issue before us is how to proceed once the page protection expires. So I have tried to summarize the various points raised recently into a taxonomy of five general areas. Please select one and add a brief explanation of why you think it is the best way to proceed. You can also add nuance to your position if you don't completely agree with one item, but please use another thread for extended commentary. With five choices and a diversity of opinion, no one choice is likely to get consensus on this go around, so this should only be considered a preliminary canvassing of the community, and a subsequent poll will probably be needed after alternatives with minimal support are dropped, and the choices refined. Please note that this straw poll specifically relates to next steps for this particular page only, and is not a poll on the concept of Notability or any other guidelines.
;Keep:This guideline has broad and stable consensus, and consensus can be maintained with incremental improvement through the normal editing process. The concept and execution are good. It should continue to be tagged as a :
;Discuss:This guideline once had broad consensus, but the consensus is not stable because of a lack of consensus-based editing. The consensus can be restored by editing in a few problem areas following discussion of the issues, leading to a reasonable compromise. The concept is good but the execution has gone astray. The guideline should be tagged as : 
;Revise:This guideline never achieved a stable consensus, and can not do so without significant revision. The text needs an overhaul. The concept has merit, but the execution has been poor. This page should be tagged as: : 
;Rebuild:This guideline has no consensus, and cannot achieve consensus within its present framework. The concept is fundamentally flawed and needs a rethink. The guideline should be cut down to a stub and rebuilt. The new guideline should initially be tagged as: : 
;Discard:This guideline has no hope of consensus, and any attempts to rebuild it are futile. The concept is fatally flawed. This page should be retained only for historical reference. This page should be tagged as: : 
--Dhaluza 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
;Delete:This guideline has no hope of consensus, and any attempts to rebuild it are futile. The concept is fatally flawed. This page should not be retained as it will be an ongoing point of contention. This page should be disappear and be salted.
*I added the last category, not that this is what I advocate, but if the consensus is to "discard" the whole notability infrastructure should be deleted and salted so we can look at other options for encyclopedic suitability. --Kevin Murray 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
===Suggestions===
*Keep — This guideline should be kept, and we should think about making it an official policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discuss — I think this is probably an appropriate tag; the guideline could use improvement, but I don't see it as having never had consensus. It is a valuable part of Wikipedia and should be improved, not put on a track to repeal. --Brianyoumans 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild — Although I suggested adding the disputed tag as a compromise, I don't see any signs of compromise from the hard-liners. Although I think that Notability will prove to be a Trip to Abilene, we should still try to create a guideline that works--but we are far from that, because the fundamental assumptions are off the mark. Also, I don't find evidence of consensus in the edit history. Dhaluza 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard — Per Kevin Murray (below). The more I dig into the disgraceful edit history, and look at the arguments here, the less likely it looks that consensus is possible under this roof. I think we should just tag this as rejected, and move on. A guideline that discusses what should be included in this encyclopedia by clarifying and unifying policy, without expanding it, would be useful. But we can't get there from here, and need to start over. Welcome to Abilene. Dhaluza 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8) 
*Rebuild — Though I'm not sure if the proposal tag is appropriate. I think the page was best when it was still just an essay, and I would prefer that it return to that essay status. Notability does have some merit in AfD discussions and there should be a page describing the issue. But it shouldn't be an actionable guideline that permits editors to take hatchets to article simply for being non-notable or to override the subject-specific guidelines (which no one had problems with until this page became a guideline). --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild As per User:Farix "I would prefer that it return to that essay status...Notability does have some merit in AfD discussions and there should be a page describing the issue" Travb (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise  or possibly {{discuss} or something in between. Without some at least temporary guideline the AfD discussions will become a total free-for-all. We have been using guidelines based on this, and without this the structure falls apart. The true dispute is whether we need the older strict guideline or this looser one--and having none at all satisfies neither side. We would at the very least need something to replace it.  DGG 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild AfD discussions will not become a free-for-all in the meantime. Consensus can still be built on a case-by-case basis, and will still informed by the subject specific guidelines. This page should attempt to describe the "average consensus" that has been reached over all the AfD discussions that come down to an issue of notability. I think it should not be prescriptive, but descriptive - descriptive of what the consensus at the AfD discussions has shown. It should give old and new editors alike a feeling for whether an article would be deemed non-notable at an AfD if that AfD had not been informed by any "notability rule". Sanchom (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep, and consider making it an official policy.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild.  Sanchom's position (2 comments up) is very close to my own.  WP:N should be descriptive, not prescriptive.--ragesoss 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discuss or discard.  The wording sucks, the guideline is misunderstood, and it's being weilded to minimise the more important subject-specific guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild - the entire current approach to notability does not work, and should be abandoned in favor of an approach based on the question of whether we can write a good article on the subject. Phil Sandifer 13:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**If by "good" you mean attributable and encyclopedic, then the approach you suggest is the same approach suggested in the current version of WP:N.  See the third sentence.  Pan Dan 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***Actually, that's not what I mean - all of the problems with this page extend from the word "encyclopedic," a word we are largely incapable of working with on a level beyond "I don't like it, I think it's boring, I think it's trivial, let's delete it." Phil Sandifer 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****"Encyclopedic" refers to WP:NOT--an official and pretty specific policy--not WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Pan Dan 09:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****No it doesn't. WP:NOT nowhere defines "encyclopedic" except inasmuch as it discusses an "encyclopedic manner" of writing. It's a dreadfully vague term that is clearly at many points subjective. (See, for instance, "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries.") In practice, encyclopedic has been a matter of "I don't find it interesting." There are no particular standards of what is encyclopedic beyond a tautology - what is notable is encyclopedic. What is encyclopedic is notable stuff. In both cases it amounts to "I know it when I see it," which is to say, "I don't much like it." Phil Sandifer 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild or discard - it was created as an excuse for deletion when the nominator couldn't think of one that was actually in policy and has continued primarily to be used for this purpose. It's a possibly nice idea that's been hopelessly poisoned in practice. Burn it down - David Gerard 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**That's really not true... the basics of WP:N was created by Uncle G, who rarely nominates articles for deletion and who knows better than probably anyone else what policies to mention in an AFD. --W.marsh 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***Which is why this is puzzling, because it's very poor in execution. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**"an excuse for deletion when the nominator couldn't think of one that was actually in policy" -- but WP:N is a logical derivative of the core policies WP:A, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT.  WP:N gives the nominator of article X a shorthand way to say "there's no way to write an attributed, neutral encyclopedia article on the topic of article X."  It's the subject-specific criteria, not WP:N, which have no basis in policy.  Pan Dan 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***WP:N isn't a logical derivtive of anything.  It's a poor attempt at making a one-size-fits-all guideline for things that have different notability due to their subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****As both my comment and WP:N itself (attempt to) explain why WP:N is a logical derivative of the Big 3, I think you should explain why you disagree.  Pan Dan 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****Because "notability" has nothing to do with the verifiability of an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
******OK, now it's clear you're talking about notability in the sense of "importance" or "distinction."  You're right, that sense of notability has nothing to do with policy.  But this page is explicitly based on policy.  You should really be arguing for renaming this page, not rejecting or revising its content.  Pan Dan 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*******No, this page has nothing to do with policy.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*voting is silly here. I don't really know what else to say... voting will not accomplish anything here. --W.marsh 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Yes, this is rather ridiculous. (Also, I hope this is not a vote about what tag to put on the page.) —Centrx→talk • 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***You hope not, but it seems that way. As I've said, this is largely invalid without considering the guideline's use in practice-every user who cites notability is de facto assenting to the guideline. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****That sounds analogous to the description of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Dhaluza 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****Wouldn't say that, given that anyone who disagrees with a guideline around here is free to ignore it, subject of course to the community's decision on whether they should ignore it. If the community repeatedly says "No, that shouldn't be ignored in this case", they are supporting. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***As the tagging was a central issue in the edit war leading up to protection, that is an element of the poll. But I have tried to create a framework around each tag, focusing discussion around logical groupings of positions expressed by editors to get the sense of the community. Dhaluza 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****Pre-formed options are just several false dilemmas, and will not come up with any solution—that's what discussion is for. This is a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****The fundamental law of navigation is that to get where you're going, you need to know where you are. Since we're not going anywhere now that the page is protected, it seems a reasonable use of time to try to find out where we are. Dhaluza 17:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard - It has become clear in recent months that these guidelines are arbitrarily and haphazardly adhered to and interpretations of it, even by single users, changes for reasons as frivolous as WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Key points in the guideline are changed and reverted like a United Airlines Terminal flight status indicator at O'Hare.  In the end it is only confusing to new and old editors alike who have genuine interest in creating and maintaining quality and truthful information. --Oakshade 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**It sounds like you are referring to the many subject-specific notability guidelines.  This discussion is only (I think) about one guideline, WP:N.  You might want to clarify your comment.  Pan Dan 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*** I'm referring to the application of this so-called guideline which is frequently ignored by editors to suit their arguement. i.e. "Fails WP:N. This is not notable becuase it's not the subject of mulitple non-trival pulbished works" and the same editor in a different article talk page or AfD will say "It might have mulitple non-trival published works, but WP:N is just a guildline, and I think the subject is non-notable because [insert arbitrary argument]."  --Oakshade 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****If editors are not applying a rule consistently, that's no reason to discard the rule.  Should we get rid of WP:NPOV or WP:A because some editors don't apply them consistently either?  Pan Dan 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***** That's just it.  The so-called "rule" isn't really a rule at all.  It in effect invites inconsistant interpretation and application. --Oakshade 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::but discarding this will leave no standard at all, and thus lead to even greater fall of quality . The subject-specific guidelines are special cases of this one. Recent discussion on some of them has led to similar stalemates and a reliance upon the general WP:N, which is now about to disappear. DGG 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::It seems I'm giving the wrong impression.  These comments are about the inherent "Notablity" problem garnered by this core guideline. I agree that there needs to be some kind of framework of inclusion here, but so far with this I've only seen confusion, double-talk and "gaming the system" due to the arbitrary and ever-changing wording as to what is "notable." Do I have a solution?  No.  But something that is somehow "official" has got to be better than this.  I have no problem of this being an essay. --Oakshade 15:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Fnord. On reflecting, I don't care if this is a guideline, a wikispace essay, a policy every editor has to sign in virtual blood, a userspace essay, is tagged  or , or any combination of these. Its work is done. The idea that articles need sources, and that articles which probably can't be sourced get bitbucketed is an AFD commonplace. The WP:ATTers have gone further than that, and incorporated their message into the edit window boilerplate. Admittedly, people rarely read boilerplate, but rarely times large numbers of edits translates to quite a lot of reads, for the nutshell version at least. The content policies are covered at WP:5P and everything else is cruft. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:What does Fnord mean? Travb (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::Uh, why not look it up on Wikipedia: Fnord -- Dhaluza 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::Ever notice how organizations, as they become more established, conservative, and selective, use certain buzzwords that only select members can understand? I hate that. There is a sociology term for this phenomenia, which I can't recall.  :(  I still don't know what the fuck Fnord is.  I think User:Angusmclellan is trying to be clever, problem is only veteran wikipedians understand his joke. :( Travb (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::That's because it doesn't mean anything, like my 42 !vote. Nifboy 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise — As it stands, this policy is too open to abuse and misuse. A thorough debate needs to be held as to whether a policy like this is necessary and, if so, what better ways there are to implement it. -Xiroth 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard or heavily revise. In the early days of WP, notability's strength was that it was a catch-all for articles we agreed were not worth keeping but could not find any reason to delete under existing policy. Such fringe cases have shrunk as the realm of policy and guidelines continues to expand, making it pretty worthless to apply notability, much less have an objective definition of what is notable and what is not. It might be worth keeping this page if it's used only as a benchmark to determine what absolutely must be kept, and is not relied on to define what should be deleted. Also, I think the concept of notability would be relevant for those few fringe cases that fall through the cracks, but as these are so few in number, it's not worth getting worked up about them (and at any rate, this would not justify keeping a codified definition of notability). Johnleemk | Talk 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep and make official policy.  Notability is an objective first step in assessing whether an encyclopedic article can be written. --Tbeatty 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise or Rebuild.  —CComMack (t–c) 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*42, mostly in agreement with Angus McLellan. The lessons this page has to teach are more or less learned, even if it's not the best teacher. Nifboy 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Depreciate per Angus McLellan or Rebuild per talk page sentiment.  In its present state, notability will remain prone to disputes and not applicable to all situations.  If possible, delete and salt the page as contentious.  There will always be a need for a guideline that can be used to prevent n00bs and oldies alike from adding nonsense to mainspace, just not this one. —davidh.oz.au 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild - I don't understand how I'm voting that "the concept is fundamentally flawed" but simultaneously am not voting on "a poll on the concept of Notability or any other guidelines." That said, the concept is badly broken, doesn't work, and makes Wikipedia the subject of ridicule. Can we start again, answering the basic question "What don't we include, and why don't we include it?" Stevage 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**It sounds like you agree with the concept of notability as defined in WP:N, and that you would approve of discarding the subject-specific notability guidelines.  So why your vote to rebuild?  This discussion is about what to do with WP:N, not the other notability guidelines.  Pan Dan 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***No, I don't agree with the concept of notability as defined in WP:N at all. I'm not sure how you could get that reading from my statement. Stevage 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****WP:N answers the question "What don't we include and why."  The subject-specific criteria--such as "has gone on an international concert tour or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" (from WP:MUSIC)--invite ridicule, not WP:N.  Pan Dan 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep, perfectly sensible guideline for WP:ATT and WP:NOT policies, good encyclopedia writing.  --Dragonfiend 06:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep as this guideline should be made an official policy. This project does not need articles about non-notables that write something on paper, and some feel that is enough for inclusion of an article about them here. Seriously, if you want to include non-notables in Wikipedia, we are all wasting our time as writers/editors. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet search engine that like a vacuum cleaner, picks up not just loose change from the carpet, but the dirt as well. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep. It's needed as a common point of reference to apply WP:NOT#IINFO to specific cases. Sandstein 09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Alternatively, we could just apply WP:NOT#IINFO directly to specific cases. That is possible by just saying in an AfD why the article under consideration falls into WP:NOT#IINFO and seeing what consensus agrees to at the time. Sancho (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep - Notability is a recognized and important standard that helps keep us from being swamped with unmaintainable cruft. Tom Harrison Talk 10:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep - as a regular participant in AfDs, I refer to notability criteria more often than to any other area of policy (particularly the "multiple non-trivial coverage" requirement). It's essential to have a generic page that describes the WP concept of "notability" and makes it clear, particularly to newbies, what we expect of a Wikipedia article. To be honest, although this is "only" a guideline, it functions like a policy; without it, it would be harder to control the flood of vanity pages with tenuous assertions of notability, articles on non-notable local bands and on non-notable corporations, and other pages created by new users who don't understand what Wikipedia is about. There's plenty of articles created every day that aren't eligible for CSD A7, but nonetheless need to be deleted; this guideline is an effective way of filtering them out. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard or Rebuild, in agreement with Angus McLellan, this 
::	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory.
:is and always has been enough. Notability as a concept is a band-aid generated by alarm at work loads and frantic claims that such and such articles aren't maintainable, etcetera. But notability is itself a judgment--one persons opinion on the basis of their experiences and values. So bubba, who the hell are you to tell folks what's important to them, what their values should be, or whether an unfamiliar topic is unworthy or worthy of coverage? Hell most leading edge science and engineering is not notable by these standards. They are severely flawed, put together by people with stars in their eyes and too much time on their hands, then somehow rubber stamped as a guideline. That's the bottom line, and the elitest mindset fostering this page and it's bastard children really are sophistry. Clever smoke and mirrors trying to sell respectable prejudice as 'is for their own good' to the poor ignorant natives. And all this sound and fury is for what? An attempt at trying to stanch blood-flow from a self-inflicted wound by another of the five pillars. 
:The real problem is 'totally open editing' of good page content, not that some article is put together for some wannabe personality with aspirations, or by some fans of a fringe topic, activity, or theory. If their is evidence that a few hundred or some small thousands of people are behind something, we should cover it, even hoaxes and wacko notions like "The US didn't land on the Moon", for they are also part of society, one of the fundamental categories in our own organizational heirarchy!!! 
: Many such articles serve wikipedia well by attracting readers as a monitor  the pulse of the world society. Checking a fact on a wp article is and has become commonplace to a whole generation and many of their predecessors, AND their parents  because of the shear breadth and depth of articles.' Limiting that dynamism is a bad idea and always has been, and that's all such a measure does and or will do. This is a tool of the deletionist, who apparently never connect the fact that their values are not someone else's, but nonetheless strive to impose their world views on the rest of us. Being noisy and energetic, they wear the rest of us down--then put together this sort of claptrap because they clique together and don't see the distress their demonstrative noise causes in the rest of the community. People avoid Afd for that very reason. It's wearing to experience so much negativism day after day. 
: So the policy change needed is not someone's content limiting values imposed on the world society, but whether or not Wikipedia can evolve to involve a multi-tiered editing policy that protects good and excellent content while still allowing that dynamic free for all spirit that built the whole collection in the first place, for that ladies and gentlemen, is what gets people interested in navigating the snake pit of way too many side-links and conflicting guidelines plus the technical challenges. 
: Then litte johnny deletionist comes along and says "Ho! This music group isn't notable. SPLAT - TAG - AFD! Violence to a lot of effort by someone that could probably turn into a better editor than little johnny ever will be, save someone bit them, and the rest of us let them get away with it! Where's the need to combine short one screen articles into huge masses of verbage in long composite articles? Where's the need to limit article counts, because it's not an topic covered in a competing media, dead tree or electronic? We are the trend setters, revere that fact, enjoy it and embrace it, but recognize that if such a standard were in place in the early days many of our best editors would not have stuck around to add tens and hundreds of core articles. 
: Bury this thing and all it's children and focus on the mission. This endless gum beating by this deletionist and mergist crowd is not the way to get article quality up, but by editing articles. Period! We don't need another guideline, but less. Jump into WP:CONCISE and the GAC/FAC processes and do things to help Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WP:CORE, and Wikipedia:Vital articles, and that will accomplish more given a regular consistent effort than any 100 policies. They really get in the way much of the time, as common sense does not. Most of all, the proliferation of all these 'guidelines' just steal peoples time away from adding or editing content. The underlying premise is plain--limit the number of articles. If you see wikipedia's way forward as a closed set of static articles, which repudiates how we got here, then keep (these) and this. If you see it as a dynamic energetic medium, as I do, then tell this cabal to take their elitism and shove it. // FrankB 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8) (refactored --edit conflict with below section added!)
::Cutting is a necessary editorial task, just as much as writing is. This artificial "deletionist/inclusionist" divide does little good and probably a lot of harm. Not everything that's in any draft, should be, and Wikipedia is the ever-draft. Some editors look for that and prune it. Just as we should look to make the writer's job as easy as possible, we should look to make the editor/cutter's job as easy as possible. They both perform valuable functions, and to pretend that only one or the other is necessary is foolish. To add material without ever cutting is equivalent to cancer and will lead to a drastic quality decrease, to cut without ever adding means sooner or later nothing would be left. You attack those who do more cutting for "causing negativity", yet can you not see how your polemic and rather uncivil statement does the same? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep and make it an official policy.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild. It links notability too much with sources. We need to decide whetehr a topic is suitable and then write about it if there are sources. --Bduke 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:*Agree--WP:ATT covers this--it's redundant here. We should have a stand-alone definition for notability or suitability. Dhaluza 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise.  I favor a combination of the previous and the current versions.  Essentially, I want it to read something like this: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.  I strongly oppose the notion that sources should be required to be independent of each other.  In addition, I believe this general notability criterion should be sufficient, but not necessary to establish notability.  Any topic that meets it is by default notable (reasonable exceptions can be made per consensus).  However, a topic that does not meet it may still be considered notable if there is strong consensus for its inclusion (e.g., official settlements).  -- Black Falcon 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Addendum.  I strongly oppose turning this into a policy given its proneness to not-unfrequent subjectivity and/or ambiguity and the obvious lack of consensus as to what should happen to it. -- Black Falcon 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard.  As someone relatively new to wikipedia there's nothing I find more discouraging than the incessant abuse of the Notability guideline to attempt to delete anything and everything that some random editor decides he doesn't like.  Verifiability and NPOV are sufficient.    Notability will always be crippled by subjectivity and hence will almost always end up being synonymous with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --JayHenry 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Discarding this page will do nothing to prevent people from deciding about the notability of a topic. Articles were deleted for this reason long before the formal concept of "notability" existed and long before this page was tagged as a guideline. Articles will continue to be deleted based on notability regardless of whether this guideline is discarded, but without the advantage of the collective wisdom and objective conditions that this page codifies. Discarding it would do the opposite of what you want. —Centrx→talk • 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***If this guideline were discarded, technically closing admins on AFDs should disregard any arguments that just claim that the topic is "not notable", so it is less likely that articles would be deleted.  Please note that I'm just writing this comment as a clarification and do not actually support discarding the notability guideline (I believe it should be revised). -- Black Falcon 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard. I agree with JayHenry above. 99of9 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep per Walton and make it an official policy. Heck, make it a Wikimedia-wide policy while we're at it. At its most fundamental level WP:N should be a filter against articles that are inappropriate to an encyclopedia. This includes things that are of such minor importance that the outside world has not bothered to write "multiple non-trivial" (or whatever words we're using these days) stories about the topic. Wikipedia will be MUCH more abused as a marketing/MySpace/etc. tool if WP:N wasn't around. I agree with Seriphimblade and strongly disagree with FrankB. Cutting is a necessary part of the editing process. Zunaid©® 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep Helps use define what is and what isn't notable...may need revision however.--MONGO 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild. Notability is definitely an important matter to consider when discussing the suitability of various topics but I have two very strong objections to the policy as written.
*#First, I think notability is a subjective term, indeed just as subjective as "a good article" is.
*#My second and greater objection is the "primary notability" criterion, calling for "one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". The presence of this type of source is of course a good thing, but it is an issue of WP:ATT, not an issue of notability. With this notability criterion, we get a horrendous systematic bias favoring subjects and events in the developed world where the media is well-developed. A village of 1000 people somewhere in England will easily pass this notability criterion. A town of 2000 people somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa will probably not pass it. All fatal car crashes in a small country like Norway would be notable. A car crash somewhere else would probably not be. The reason for the discrepancy in getting hold of these sources is not a difference in notability, but a difference in how developed media coverage is. Although there is some correlation between the presence of detailed sources and the subject's notability, the systematic bias caused by using the presence or lack of sources makes that a very poor definition of notability. To go back to the village example, if a random village somewhere in the world has no sources whatsoever, then I would still call the village notable (as would I all human settlements), but unfortunately no article can be made which meets the attribution requirement (without any way of reasonably verifying the subject, we cannot keep it no matter how notable the subject might be). If the only sources we have are a map showing its location, the country, region, and the roads leading to it, and perhaps a simple entry on a census table, we have enough information for a valid stub which I am quite sure would be kept no matter how trivial the sources we have are.
:I will make a small consession though: many scientific theories gain their notability due to attention from other scientists and/or the popular media. In such cases the presence of many or few sources may be a much stronger indication of the theory's notability. I realize that.
:In short, I think notability is something we can have a guideline for, but I have objections to the current text. I think that definitions for notability are best reserved for more specific categories of articles, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT or WP:WEB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard or rebuild. The basic problem is one of execution: that this is treated as a deletion guideline when it should be treated as an organizational guideline. Although the text of the guideline itself is not too bad, its application usually results in deletion of material that does fit into Wikipedia (though likely not as an independent article), and is therefore rarely productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard Based on the unwillingness of several people to compromise even on the smallest issue, and the reactionary votes to make this policy in the midst of controversy, I can't see any resolution within this framework.  I firmly believe that we need some minimum objective standard for inclusion into WP, but this framework has become unworkable.  I would delete and salt this location and begin fresh elsewhere under a name other than "notability" and in the interim suspend all sub pages of notability until we can design a workable core policy.  In the meantime, XfD will work just fine on the continuing good sense of the participants and admins. --Kevin Murray 13:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**I think you hit the nail on the head. How anyone can say in good faith that this guideline represents a broad consensus is beyond my comprehension. Based on the arguments, it does not even have rough consensus. I disagree with salting it though. I would rather see it rejected, and leave it stand as an example of how trying to force consensus with "the ends justify the means" arguments does not work. Dhaluza 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
TALLY to this point: (counting full votes twice, this or thats one for each, fnords not at all, only bolded text): 22 Keep, 3 Discuss, 5 Revise, 21 Rebuild, 15 Discard. Brianyoumans 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Comment. This really does show there is no consensus. There is a large group who want to keep the current page or make small modifications and there is a large group who wants a root and branch change or removal. I think the straw poll can end. We need to discuss how to handle this wide divergence of opinion. However, I think it is clear that the page can not be seen as an accepted guideline. --Bduke 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Comment I think that we should keep voting for a few days. I think there is a definite split between the people voting on the first day or so of the poll - people who were involved in the discussion, who were largely dissatisfied with the guideline - and later, more uninvolved voters, who are more in favor of either keeping (or, to be fair, of discarding, as well). About 75% of the keep votes were on March 4th or later. --Brianyoumans 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Trouble is, this isn't a vote, and it's quite clear that there's no consensus among those who care enough about this policy to voice their opinion. Discussion would be more productive than voting. Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::I agree with Brianyoumans... the more editors get a chance to participate in this phase and feel like their voice has been heard, the better the next phase will go.  We've had WP:N for a while, so those who don't like it are at least used to it as status quo; no need to rush things now.--ragesoss 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::The problem is, that most of the !votes are not going to be very well informed about the debate. Just look at the one below. If you read the comment, it more of a discuss or even revise comment. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep.  We need this guideline to help set limits for what we include, though maybe it can be tweaked some and improved.  --Aude (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
NEW TALLY to this point: (counting full votes twice, this or thats one for each, fnords not at all, only bolded text): 24 Keep, 3 Discuss, 5 Revise, 21 Rebuild, 15 Discard. Brianyoumans 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep per Walton above. PubliusFL 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: *Keep — This guideline should be kept, and we should think about making it an official policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discuss — I think this is probably an appropriate tag; the guideline could use improvement, but I don't see it as having never had consensus. It is a valuable part of Wikipedia and should be improved, not put on a track to repeal. --Brianyoumans 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild — Although I suggested adding the disputed tag as a compromise, I don't see any signs of compromise from the hard-liners. Although I think that Notability will prove to be a Trip to Abilene, we should still try to create a guideline that works--but we are far from that, because the fundamental assumptions are off the mark. Also, I don't find evidence of consensus in the edit history. Dhaluza 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard — Per Kevin Murray (below). The more I dig into the disgraceful edit history, and look at the arguments here, the less likely it looks that consensus is possible under this roof. I think we should just tag this as rejected, and move on. A guideline that discusses what should be included in this encyclopedia by clarifying and unifying policy, without expanding it, would be useful. But we can't get there from here, and need to start over. Welcome to Abilene. Dhaluza 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8) 
*Rebuild — Though I'm not sure if the proposal tag is appropriate. I think the page was best when it was still just an essay, and I would prefer that it return to that essay status. Notability does have some merit in AfD discussions and there should be a page describing the issue. But it shouldn't be an actionable guideline that permits editors to take hatchets to article simply for being non-notable or to override the subject-specific guidelines (which no one had problems with until this page became a guideline). --Farix (Talk) 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild As per User:Farix "I would prefer that it return to that essay status...Notability does have some merit in AfD discussions and there should be a page describing the issue" Travb (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise  or possibly {{discuss} or something in between. Without some at least temporary guideline the AfD discussions will become a total free-for-all. We have been using guidelines based on this, and without this the structure falls apart. The true dispute is whether we need the older strict guideline or this looser one--and having none at all satisfies neither side. We would at the very least need something to replace it.  DGG 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild AfD discussions will not become a free-for-all in the meantime. Consensus can still be built on a case-by-case basis, and will still informed by the subject specific guidelines. This page should attempt to describe the "average consensus" that has been reached over all the AfD discussions that come down to an issue of notability. I think it should not be prescriptive, but descriptive - descriptive of what the consensus at the AfD discussions has shown. It should give old and new editors alike a feeling for whether an article would be deemed non-notable at an AfD if that AfD had not been informed by any "notability rule". Sanchom (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep, and consider making it an official policy.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild.  Sanchom's position (2 comments up) is very close to my own.  WP:N should be descriptive, not prescriptive.--ragesoss 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discuss or discard.  The wording sucks, the guideline is misunderstood, and it's being weilded to minimise the more important subject-specific guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild - the entire current approach to notability does not work, and should be abandoned in favor of an approach based on the question of whether we can write a good article on the subject. Phil Sandifer 13:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**If by "good" you mean attributable and encyclopedic, then the approach you suggest is the same approach suggested in the current version of WP:N.  See the third sentence.  Pan Dan 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***Actually, that's not what I mean - all of the problems with this page extend from the word "encyclopedic," a word we are largely incapable of working with on a level beyond "I don't like it, I think it's boring, I think it's trivial, let's delete it." Phil Sandifer 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****"Encyclopedic" refers to WP:NOT--an official and pretty specific policy--not WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Pan Dan 09:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****No it doesn't. WP:NOT nowhere defines "encyclopedic" except inasmuch as it discusses an "encyclopedic manner" of writing. It's a dreadfully vague term that is clearly at many points subjective. (See, for instance, "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries.") In practice, encyclopedic has been a matter of "I don't find it interesting." There are no particular standards of what is encyclopedic beyond a tautology - what is notable is encyclopedic. What is encyclopedic is notable stuff. In both cases it amounts to "I know it when I see it," which is to say, "I don't much like it." Phil Sandifer 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild or discard - it was created as an excuse for deletion when the nominator couldn't think of one that was actually in policy and has continued primarily to be used for this purpose. It's a possibly nice idea that's been hopelessly poisoned in practice. Burn it down - David Gerard 13:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**That's really not true... the basics of WP:N was created by Uncle G, who rarely nominates articles for deletion and who knows better than probably anyone else what policies to mention in an AFD. --W.marsh 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***Which is why this is puzzling, because it's very poor in execution. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**"an excuse for deletion when the nominator couldn't think of one that was actually in policy" -- but WP:N is a logical derivative of the core policies WP:A, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT.  WP:N gives the nominator of article X a shorthand way to say "there's no way to write an attributed, neutral encyclopedia article on the topic of article X."  It's the subject-specific criteria, not WP:N, which have no basis in policy.  Pan Dan 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***WP:N isn't a logical derivtive of anything.  It's a poor attempt at making a one-size-fits-all guideline for things that have different notability due to their subjects. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****As both my comment and WP:N itself (attempt to) explain why WP:N is a logical derivative of the Big 3, I think you should explain why you disagree.  Pan Dan 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****Because "notability" has nothing to do with the verifiability of an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
******OK, now it's clear you're talking about notability in the sense of "importance" or "distinction."  You're right, that sense of notability has nothing to do with policy.  But this page is explicitly based on policy.  You should really be arguing for renaming this page, not rejecting or revising its content.  Pan Dan 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*******No, this page has nothing to do with policy.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*voting is silly here. I don't really know what else to say... voting will not accomplish anything here. --W.marsh 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Yes, this is rather ridiculous. (Also, I hope this is not a vote about what tag to put on the page.) —Centrx→talk • 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***You hope not, but it seems that way. As I've said, this is largely invalid without considering the guideline's use in practice-every user who cites notability is de facto assenting to the guideline. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****That sounds analogous to the description of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Dhaluza 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****Wouldn't say that, given that anyone who disagrees with a guideline around here is free to ignore it, subject of course to the community's decision on whether they should ignore it. If the community repeatedly says "No, that shouldn't be ignored in this case", they are supporting. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***As the tagging was a central issue in the edit war leading up to protection, that is an element of the poll. But I have tried to create a framework around each tag, focusing discussion around logical groupings of positions expressed by editors to get the sense of the community. Dhaluza 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****Pre-formed options are just several false dilemmas, and will not come up with any solution—that's what discussion is for. This is a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*****The fundamental law of navigation is that to get where you're going, you need to know where you are. Since we're not going anywhere now that the page is protected, it seems a reasonable use of time to try to find out where we are. Dhaluza 17:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard - It has become clear in recent months that these guidelines are arbitrarily and haphazardly adhered to and interpretations of it, even by single users, changes for reasons as frivolous as WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Key points in the guideline are changed and reverted like a United Airlines Terminal flight status indicator at O'Hare.  In the end it is only confusing to new and old editors alike who have genuine interest in creating and maintaining quality and truthful information. --Oakshade 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**It sounds like you are referring to the many subject-specific notability guidelines.  This discussion is only (I think) about one guideline, WP:N.  You might want to clarify your comment.  Pan Dan 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*** I'm referring to the application of this so-called guideline which is frequently ignored by editors to suit their arguement. i.e. "Fails WP:N. This is not notable becuase it's not the subject of mulitple non-trival pulbished works" and the same editor in a different article talk page or AfD will say "It might have mulitple non-trival published works, but WP:N is just a guildline, and I think the subject is non-notable because [insert arbitrary argument]."  --Oakshade 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****If editors are not applying a rule consistently, that's no reason to discard the rule.  Should we get rid of WP:NPOV or WP:A because some editors don't apply them consistently either?  Pan Dan 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***** That's just it.  The so-called "rule" isn't really a rule at all.  It in effect invites inconsistant interpretation and application. --Oakshade 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::but discarding this will leave no standard at all, and thus lead to even greater fall of quality . The subject-specific guidelines are special cases of this one. Recent discussion on some of them has led to similar stalemates and a reliance upon the general WP:N, which is now about to disappear. DGG 14:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::It seems I'm giving the wrong impression.  These comments are about the inherent "Notablity" problem garnered by this core guideline. I agree that there needs to be some kind of framework of inclusion here, but so far with this I've only seen confusion, double-talk and "gaming the system" due to the arbitrary and ever-changing wording as to what is "notable." Do I have a solution?  No.  But something that is somehow "official" has got to be better than this.  I have no problem of this being an essay. --Oakshade 15:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Fnord. On reflecting, I don't care if this is a guideline, a wikispace essay, a policy every editor has to sign in virtual blood, a userspace essay, is tagged  or , or any combination of these. Its work is done. The idea that articles need sources, and that articles which probably can't be sourced get bitbucketed is an AFD commonplace. The WP:ATTers have gone further than that, and incorporated their message into the edit window boilerplate. Admittedly, people rarely read boilerplate, but rarely times large numbers of edits translates to quite a lot of reads, for the nutshell version at least. The content policies are covered at WP:5P and everything else is cruft. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:What does Fnord mean? Travb (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::Uh, why not look it up on Wikipedia: Fnord -- Dhaluza 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::Ever notice how organizations, as they become more established, conservative, and selective, use certain buzzwords that only select members can understand? I hate that. There is a sociology term for this phenomenia, which I can't recall.  :(  I still don't know what the fuck Fnord is.  I think User:Angusmclellan is trying to be clever, problem is only veteran wikipedians understand his joke. :( Travb (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::That's because it doesn't mean anything, like my 42 !vote. Nifboy 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise — As it stands, this policy is too open to abuse and misuse. A thorough debate needs to be held as to whether a policy like this is necessary and, if so, what better ways there are to implement it. -Xiroth 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard or heavily revise. In the early days of WP, notability's strength was that it was a catch-all for articles we agreed were not worth keeping but could not find any reason to delete under existing policy. Such fringe cases have shrunk as the realm of policy and guidelines continues to expand, making it pretty worthless to apply notability, much less have an objective definition of what is notable and what is not. It might be worth keeping this page if it's used only as a benchmark to determine what absolutely must be kept, and is not relied on to define what should be deleted. Also, I think the concept of notability would be relevant for those few fringe cases that fall through the cracks, but as these are so few in number, it's not worth getting worked up about them (and at any rate, this would not justify keeping a codified definition of notability). Johnleemk | Talk 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep and make official policy.  Notability is an objective first step in assessing whether an encyclopedic article can be written. --Tbeatty 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise or Rebuild.  —CComMack (t–c) 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*42, mostly in agreement with Angus McLellan. The lessons this page has to teach are more or less learned, even if it's not the best teacher. Nifboy 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Depreciate per Angus McLellan or Rebuild per talk page sentiment.  In its present state, notability will remain prone to disputes and not applicable to all situations.  If possible, delete and salt the page as contentious.  There will always be a need for a guideline that can be used to prevent n00bs and oldies alike from adding nonsense to mainspace, just not this one. —davidh.oz.au 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild - I don't understand how I'm voting that "the concept is fundamentally flawed" but simultaneously am not voting on "a poll on the concept of Notability or any other guidelines." That said, the concept is badly broken, doesn't work, and makes Wikipedia the subject of ridicule. Can we start again, answering the basic question "What don't we include, and why don't we include it?" Stevage 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**It sounds like you agree with the concept of notability as defined in WP:N, and that you would approve of discarding the subject-specific notability guidelines.  So why your vote to rebuild?  This discussion is about what to do with WP:N, not the other notability guidelines.  Pan Dan 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***No, I don't agree with the concept of notability as defined in WP:N at all. I'm not sure how you could get that reading from my statement. Stevage 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
****WP:N answers the question "What don't we include and why."  The subject-specific criteria--such as "has gone on an international concert tour or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" (from WP:MUSIC)--invite ridicule, not WP:N.  Pan Dan 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep, perfectly sensible guideline for WP:ATT and WP:NOT policies, good encyclopedia writing.  --Dragonfiend 06:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep as this guideline should be made an official policy. This project does not need articles about non-notables that write something on paper, and some feel that is enough for inclusion of an article about them here. Seriously, if you want to include non-notables in Wikipedia, we are all wasting our time as writers/editors. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet search engine that like a vacuum cleaner, picks up not just loose change from the carpet, but the dirt as well. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep. It's needed as a common point of reference to apply WP:NOT#IINFO to specific cases. Sandstein 09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Alternatively, we could just apply WP:NOT#IINFO directly to specific cases. That is possible by just saying in an AfD why the article under consideration falls into WP:NOT#IINFO and seeing what consensus agrees to at the time. Sancho (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep - Notability is a recognized and important standard that helps keep us from being swamped with unmaintainable cruft. Tom Harrison Talk 10:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep - as a regular participant in AfDs, I refer to notability criteria more often than to any other area of policy (particularly the "multiple non-trivial coverage" requirement). It's essential to have a generic page that describes the WP concept of "notability" and makes it clear, particularly to newbies, what we expect of a Wikipedia article. To be honest, although this is "only" a guideline, it functions like a policy; without it, it would be harder to control the flood of vanity pages with tenuous assertions of notability, articles on non-notable local bands and on non-notable corporations, and other pages created by new users who don't understand what Wikipedia is about. There's plenty of articles created every day that aren't eligible for CSD A7, but nonetheless need to be deleted; this guideline is an effective way of filtering them out. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard or Rebuild, in agreement with Angus McLellan, this 
::	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory.
:is and always has been enough. Notability as a concept is a band-aid generated by alarm at work loads and frantic claims that such and such articles aren't maintainable, etcetera. But notability is itself a judgment--one persons opinion on the basis of their experiences and values. So bubba, who the hell are you to tell folks what's important to them, what their values should be, or whether an unfamiliar topic is unworthy or worthy of coverage? Hell most leading edge science and engineering is not notable by these standards. They are severely flawed, put together by people with stars in their eyes and too much time on their hands, then somehow rubber stamped as a guideline. That's the bottom line, and the elitest mindset fostering this page and it's bastard children really are sophistry. Clever smoke and mirrors trying to sell respectable prejudice as 'is for their own good' to the poor ignorant natives. And all this sound and fury is for what? An attempt at trying to stanch blood-flow from a self-inflicted wound by another of the five pillars. 
:The real problem is 'totally open editing' of good page content, not that some article is put together for some wannabe personality with aspirations, or by some fans of a fringe topic, activity, or theory. If their is evidence that a few hundred or some small thousands of people are behind something, we should cover it, even hoaxes and wacko notions like "The US didn't land on the Moon", for they are also part of society, one of the fundamental categories in our own organizational heirarchy!!! 
: Many such articles serve wikipedia well by attracting readers as a monitor  the pulse of the world society. Checking a fact on a wp article is and has become commonplace to a whole generation and many of their predecessors, AND their parents  because of the shear breadth and depth of articles.' Limiting that dynamism is a bad idea and always has been, and that's all such a measure does and or will do. This is a tool of the deletionist, who apparently never connect the fact that their values are not someone else's, but nonetheless strive to impose their world views on the rest of us. Being noisy and energetic, they wear the rest of us down--then put together this sort of claptrap because they clique together and don't see the distress their demonstrative noise causes in the rest of the community. People avoid Afd for that very reason. It's wearing to experience so much negativism day after day. 
: So the policy change needed is not someone's content limiting values imposed on the world society, but whether or not Wikipedia can evolve to involve a multi-tiered editing policy that protects good and excellent content while still allowing that dynamic free for all spirit that built the whole collection in the first place, for that ladies and gentlemen, is what gets people interested in navigating the snake pit of way too many side-links and conflicting guidelines plus the technical challenges. 
: Then litte johnny deletionist comes along and says "Ho! This music group isn't notable. SPLAT - TAG - AFD! Violence to a lot of effort by someone that could probably turn into a better editor than little johnny ever will be, save someone bit them, and the rest of us let them get away with it! Where's the need to combine short one screen articles into huge masses of verbage in long composite articles? Where's the need to limit article counts, because it's not an topic covered in a competing media, dead tree or electronic? We are the trend setters, revere that fact, enjoy it and embrace it, but recognize that if such a standard were in place in the early days many of our best editors would not have stuck around to add tens and hundreds of core articles. 
: Bury this thing and all it's children and focus on the mission. This endless gum beating by this deletionist and mergist crowd is not the way to get article quality up, but by editing articles. Period! We don't need another guideline, but less. Jump into WP:CONCISE and the GAC/FAC processes and do things to help Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WP:CORE, and Wikipedia:Vital articles, and that will accomplish more given a regular consistent effort than any 100 policies. They really get in the way much of the time, as common sense does not. Most of all, the proliferation of all these 'guidelines' just steal peoples time away from adding or editing content. The underlying premise is plain--limit the number of articles. If you see wikipedia's way forward as a closed set of static articles, which repudiates how we got here, then keep (these) and this. If you see it as a dynamic energetic medium, as I do, then tell this cabal to take their elitism and shove it. // FrankB 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8) (refactored --edit conflict with below section added!)
::Cutting is a necessary editorial task, just as much as writing is. This artificial "deletionist/inclusionist" divide does little good and probably a lot of harm. Not everything that's in any draft, should be, and Wikipedia is the ever-draft. Some editors look for that and prune it. Just as we should look to make the writer's job as easy as possible, we should look to make the editor/cutter's job as easy as possible. They both perform valuable functions, and to pretend that only one or the other is necessary is foolish. To add material without ever cutting is equivalent to cancer and will lead to a drastic quality decrease, to cut without ever adding means sooner or later nothing would be left. You attack those who do more cutting for "causing negativity", yet can you not see how your polemic and rather uncivil statement does the same? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep and make it an official policy.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild. It links notability too much with sources. We need to decide whetehr a topic is suitable and then write about it if there are sources. --Bduke 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:*Agree--WP:ATT covers this--it's redundant here. We should have a stand-alone definition for notability or suitability. Dhaluza 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Revise.  I favor a combination of the previous and the current versions.  Essentially, I want it to read something like this: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.  I strongly oppose the notion that sources should be required to be independent of each other.  In addition, I believe this general notability criterion should be sufficient, but not necessary to establish notability.  Any topic that meets it is by default notable (reasonable exceptions can be made per consensus).  However, a topic that does not meet it may still be considered notable if there is strong consensus for its inclusion (e.g., official settlements).  -- Black Falcon 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Addendum.  I strongly oppose turning this into a policy given its proneness to not-unfrequent subjectivity and/or ambiguity and the obvious lack of consensus as to what should happen to it. -- Black Falcon 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard.  As someone relatively new to wikipedia there's nothing I find more discouraging than the incessant abuse of the Notability guideline to attempt to delete anything and everything that some random editor decides he doesn't like.  Verifiability and NPOV are sufficient.    Notability will always be crippled by subjectivity and hence will almost always end up being synonymous with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --JayHenry 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Discarding this page will do nothing to prevent people from deciding about the notability of a topic. Articles were deleted for this reason long before the formal concept of "notability" existed and long before this page was tagged as a guideline. Articles will continue to be deleted based on notability regardless of whether this guideline is discarded, but without the advantage of the collective wisdom and objective conditions that this page codifies. Discarding it would do the opposite of what you want. —Centrx→talk • 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
***If this guideline were discarded, technically closing admins on AFDs should disregard any arguments that just claim that the topic is "not notable", so it is less likely that articles would be deleted.  Please note that I'm just writing this comment as a clarification and do not actually support discarding the notability guideline (I believe it should be revised). -- Black Falcon 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard. I agree with JayHenry above. 99of9 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep per Walton and make it an official policy. Heck, make it a Wikimedia-wide policy while we're at it. At its most fundamental level WP:N should be a filter against articles that are inappropriate to an encyclopedia. This includes things that are of such minor importance that the outside world has not bothered to write "multiple non-trivial" (or whatever words we're using these days) stories about the topic. Wikipedia will be MUCH more abused as a marketing/MySpace/etc. tool if WP:N wasn't around. I agree with Seriphimblade and strongly disagree with FrankB. Cutting is a necessary part of the editing process. Zunaid©® 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep Helps use define what is and what isn't notable...may need revision however.--MONGO 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Rebuild. Notability is definitely an important matter to consider when discussing the suitability of various topics but I have two very strong objections to the policy as written.
*#First, I think notability is a subjective term, indeed just as subjective as "a good article" is.
*#My second and greater objection is the "primary notability" criterion, calling for "one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". The presence of this type of source is of course a good thing, but it is an issue of WP:ATT, not an issue of notability. With this notability criterion, we get a horrendous systematic bias favoring subjects and events in the developed world where the media is well-developed. A village of 1000 people somewhere in England will easily pass this notability criterion. A town of 2000 people somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa will probably not pass it. All fatal car crashes in a small country like Norway would be notable. A car crash somewhere else would probably not be. The reason for the discrepancy in getting hold of these sources is not a difference in notability, but a difference in how developed media coverage is. Although there is some correlation between the presence of detailed sources and the subject's notability, the systematic bias caused by using the presence or lack of sources makes that a very poor definition of notability. To go back to the village example, if a random village somewhere in the world has no sources whatsoever, then I would still call the village notable (as would I all human settlements), but unfortunately no article can be made which meets the attribution requirement (without any way of reasonably verifying the subject, we cannot keep it no matter how notable the subject might be). If the only sources we have are a map showing its location, the country, region, and the roads leading to it, and perhaps a simple entry on a census table, we have enough information for a valid stub which I am quite sure would be kept no matter how trivial the sources we have are.
:I will make a small consession though: many scientific theories gain their notability due to attention from other scientists and/or the popular media. In such cases the presence of many or few sources may be a much stronger indication of the theory's notability. I realize that.
:In short, I think notability is something we can have a guideline for, but I have objections to the current text. I think that definitions for notability are best reserved for more specific categories of articles, such as WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT or WP:WEB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard or rebuild. The basic problem is one of execution: that this is treated as a deletion guideline when it should be treated as an organizational guideline. Although the text of the guideline itself is not too bad, its application usually results in deletion of material that does fit into Wikipedia (though likely not as an independent article), and is therefore rarely productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Discard Based on the unwillingness of several people to compromise even on the smallest issue, and the reactionary votes to make this policy in the midst of controversy, I can't see any resolution within this framework.  I firmly believe that we need some minimum objective standard for inclusion into WP, but this framework has become unworkable.  I would delete and salt this location and begin fresh elsewhere under a name other than "notability" and in the interim suspend all sub pages of notability until we can design a workable core policy.  In the meantime, XfD will work just fine on the continuing good sense of the participants and admins. --Kevin Murray 13:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**I think you hit the nail on the head. How anyone can say in good faith that this guideline represents a broad consensus is beyond my comprehension. Based on the arguments, it does not even have rough consensus. I disagree with salting it though. I would rather see it rejected, and leave it stand as an example of how trying to force consensus with "the ends justify the means" arguments does not work. Dhaluza 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
TALLY to this point: (counting full votes twice, this or thats one for each, fnords not at all, only bolded text): 22 Keep, 3 Discuss, 5 Revise, 21 Rebuild, 15 Discard. Brianyoumans 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Comment. This really does show there is no consensus. There is a large group who want to keep the current page or make small modifications and there is a large group who wants a root and branch change or removal. I think the straw poll can end. We need to discuss how to handle this wide divergence of opinion. However, I think it is clear that the page can not be seen as an accepted guideline. --Bduke 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Comment I think that we should keep voting for a few days. I think there is a definite split between the people voting on the first day or so of the poll - people who were involved in the discussion, who were largely dissatisfied with the guideline - and later, more uninvolved voters, who are more in favor of either keeping (or, to be fair, of discarding, as well). About 75% of the keep votes were on March 4th or later. --Brianyoumans 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)
**Trouble is, this isn't a vote, and it's quite clear that there's no consensus among those who care enough about this policy to voice their opinion. Discussion would be more productive than voting. Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
:::I agree with Brianyoumans... the more editors get a chance to participate in this phase and feel like their voice has been heard, the better the next phase will go.  We've had WP:N for a while, so those who don't like it are at least used to it as status quo; no need to rush things now.--ragesoss 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
::::The problem is, that most of the !votes are not going to be very well informed about the debate. Just look at the one below. If you read the comment, it more of a discuss or even revise comment. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep.  We need this guideline to help set limits for what we include, though maybe it can be tweaked some and improved.  --Aude (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
NEW TALLY to this point: (counting full votes twice, this or thats one for each, fnords not at all, only bolded text): 24 Keep, 3 Discuss, 5 Revise, 21 Rebuild, 15 Discard. Brianyoumans 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
*Keep per Walton above. PubliusFL 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Would it be appropriate to AfD 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game? I mean individual football games. So what if it's the first meeting between the two teams, the game seems inherently non-notable. I hesitated to be bold because it looked well-sourced but in theory any article about any individual sports contest could be well sourced. Any thoughts. IvoShandor 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a second opinion from another user and went ahead and AfD this article. Thanks anyway. IvoShandor 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: ****By the way, this chart is completely screwing with my display, making this very hard to read.  Why you need it to be huge on this screen, I have no clue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart Logistics Discussion