Wikipedia talk:Non-notability/Archive 1

message: The essay lists "problems with keeping non-notable pages" and then proceeds to shoot these down as arguments. Indeed, as arguments for deleting non-notable pages in general they are not strong. But isn't this setting up a straw man? The essay will be stronger if it tackles the arguments from Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments for deleting non-notable articles. --LambiamTalk 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this is a straw man. This proposal is meant as something entirely separate from the essay, and it doesn't interpret (or misinterpret) anything from that essay. The thing is, the essay is an essay, and I really think there should be a clear guideline on this subject. Fresheneesz 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw man? 

message: I removed this paragraph pending further discussion:
"As an example, Wikipedia had for a long time an article on a crank theory called aetherometry.  It documented the theory and systematically debunked it.  It was for some considerable time one of the leading sources of information on the subject.  But it was deleted, because the debunking was original research, as the theory had never been published or discussed in any peer-reviewed journal; that left the pro-aetherometry side only, which was therefore non-neutral.  It was not possible to cover the subject neutrally without original research, because the theory itself was non-notable and had not been given so much as a passing nod by the scientific press.  The only reliable primary sources were those promoting the theory, and there were no reliable secondary sources at all."
I think this precedent sort of goes against what this guideline is advising. I think that the main idea of aetherometry could have been (and might very well have been) merged with Aether theories. Noting that the entire subject was deleted with no redirect (I just took the liberty of RDing it to aether theory) I think goes against the intent of this guideline. Comments? Fresheneesz 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article was deleted for being original research, then it was not deleted for non-notability and this essay would not apply. —Centrx→talk • 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted as a non-notable crank theory (which is also why it was not merged: it was a minor POV which would have been accorded undue weight).  We have plenty of notable crank theories.  But do feel free to find a better example. Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aetherometry 

message: Just a question, why was it removed again? Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea.  I've readded it pending explanation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed quote of Brion Vibber 

message: I've looked over the undue weight part of NPOV, and I've never seen any way to interpret that separate articles can by themselves constitute undue weight. Could someone please quote something that can be interpretted as such? It seems like the following sentence directly contradicts such thinking anyway:
"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."
Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uncontested, I removed this "(although note that sometimes the existence of a separate article in and of itself constitutes undue weight, for example in the case of a minor theory with few adherents)." Fresheneesz 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with most of that - espcially the POV fork and articles containing undue weight. However, I think that suggesting we delete an article that would put undue weight on a main article is against the spirit of this proposal - its certainly not what I intended when I began it. The "worth" of an article is what this proposal is about - ie that "worth" is inherintly biased by the individual asserting the worth, and thus not a useful way of classifying (or deleting) articles. Fresheneesz 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also note that WP:NPOV does not suggest deleting articles in the way you explain. Fresheneesz 23:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidance on content forking is quite clear.  Information which doesn't belong in the main article should not have its own article if that constitutes a POV fork.  Regards what you intended for this proposal, this is a wiki, we are all gfree to edit and amend.  If you wish to change current policies and guidelines, you do that at the specific talk page, not by attempting to write a separate proposal.  To be honest, I think I'd reject this proposal at the moment, as it adds nothing new to Wikipedia. The worth of an article is what we debate at WP:AFD.  I'm not sure what you feel this proposal addresses. Hiding Talk 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already said, I agree with you about the POV fork thing. This proposal intends to "ban" (not truely ban since it would be a guideline not policy) the use of notability in discussions of an article's worth. This would be quite a large change, and so I have to assume that what you mean by "adds nothing" is that it doesn't make wikipedia better. I simply disagree. Fresheneesz 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this proposal should be upfront about the fact that it simply wants to ban notability as a word from wikipedia.  That's unworkable, and please assume good faith. Hiding Talk 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps ban isn't the right word. However, I do think the proposal makes its intent very clear, especially in the nutshell - "Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article, or inclusion of an article itself". Fresheneesz 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight of separate articles

message: There is currently a proposed policy that directly contradicts this proposed guideline (and therefore would overrule it if passed) Clinkophonist 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you be more specific as to what contradicts? I looked over it and I can't quite understand the intent of the proposed policy - or how one would use it. Fresheneesz 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even assuming they do contradict, I don't think Wikipedia is schizophrenic enough to give both consensus.  Policy doesn't overrule guidelines; it accords with guidelines. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Importance]] 

message: I think it would be good to discuss how we could rearrange this page, in order to better emphasize the main points of the guidline. For example, people might read part of it and might think that it violates this or that policy, because the arguments to dispell that thought are buried in the page. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we could reorganize the page? Fresheneesz 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "Arguments against using notability" to "Nn articles are beneficial" as the contents are very similar, these are the main points and need to be put plainly, and arguements against notability could be merged with "Arguements for using notability" --Ephilei 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging this page 

message: The concept of "importance" needs to be discussed. I don't see any problem with an article stating why its subject is "important" - but to me, notability is much more than that. Notability implies some sort of widespread popularity, which I don't think should be a requirement of an article. However, the problem with importance is that it can be a synonym for notability - which isn't good. We need to find a way to describe these concepts without muddling ourselves up with insufficient words. Fresheneesz 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I tend to use importance as a synonym for notability for no other reason than there's too much jargon to keep straight. --05:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  importance problem 

message: This section contains several excellent examples of begging the question :-) I'm still waiting for a good example of a subject which is not "notable" by normal editors' standards but which has achieved sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow its coverage in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. The comments about covering tiny minority views also still look like a barrow-pusher's charter.  Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your point proves why notability is useless - you claim that in every case Verifiability and NPOV is sufficeient. This proposal agrees. Fresheneesz 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I fully agree that that section is misleading and disingenuous for instance by confusing nn articles with nn opinions and censorship or by insinuating that there is some sort of financial advantage for Wikipedia to allow nn articles. The argument that deleting nn articles is a waste of everybody's time of course completely disregards the considerable problems associated with time wasted on nn articles by WikiGnomes taking time to stop vandalism, remove spam, categorize and keep to a reasonnable standard all these articles. Point 1 is pure speculation and I would say the same if someone defended without substantiating the claim that editors who see categories clogged with useless junk are likely to leave WP. It also assumes that everyone agrees with the proposition "more editors = higher quality WP" since it is pointed out that these extra editors would not contribute significantly to making the existing entries better. Point 6 argues that if an article is written then more people will read it. I suppose that's trivially true but how is that a benefit? How is point 7 representing a "benefit of nn articles"? Pascal.Tesson 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite ... you're not the only person who didn't miss the exhortation to attract new "editors and donors" (emphasis mine).  That aside, frankly, this whole proposal airily assumes that a vast horde of new editors means a higher quality encyclopedia, but if everything's included as long as it's verifiable?  Categories become useless overnight, as they'd be overwhelmed by every high school football player (who can link to a hometown newspaper), every amateur actor and play (ditto), every writer of anything at all, so long as there's a link, every "band" that has a Myspace page, every corner grocery store with a website.  Right now, the whole notability side has a fundamental premise -- that allowing indiscriminate cruft weakens Wikipedia's quality and credibility.  I'm not sure why a quality encyclopedia is a bad thing, but I am sure that Wikipedia's market share will evaporate overnight to some new similar effort that is seen to maintain some standards.  RGTraynor 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This straw-man argument comes up every time someone mentions doing away with notability. WP:V and WP:RS already prevent these 'articles'. "every high school football player (who can link to a hometown newspaper)" in which they have been mentioned non-trivially by multiple sources? That narrows the field considerably. "every writer of anything at all, so long as there's a link" to a reliable source, yep. Again, not nearly as large as you seem to think, as most websites don't qualify as a reliable source. For example, "every "band" that has a Myspace page" Myspace ain't reliable, and so ain't usable. If verifiability and the requirement for multiple non-trivial third-party reliable sources are maintained, notability is simply useless. Ziggurat 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Boy oh boy am I happy to read such common sense. Could not have said it better. I would also add that there is little evidence that this new horde of editors would do much more than create a new entry about their grade-school math teacher and leave. Pascal.Tesson 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement on MySpace from the band would be assumed, like similar generic self-identifying statements, to be accurate. If the band states on their MySpace page that they are a "Christian rock" band, there is no reason to think that is incorrect. You don't need to cite the New York Times to verify that anyone can edit most all Wikipedia pages. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the crucial point here is that current policy requires multiple independent sources to justify the inclusion of an article, regardless of the use of notability. If a band only has a MySpace page, they can't be included. Think of it as 'objective notability' if you like, or at least 'out-sourced notability'. Verifiability requires proof that the world has taken notice somehow; notability only that Wikipedians have taken notice. Ziggurat 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, pretty much.  We aren't AfDing significant articles, and any time someone tries the condemnation is immediate.  What this proposal would enshrine is the insignificant and trivial, and I wonder why someone driven away from editing on Wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia with standards constitutes a loss to us.  RGTraynor 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because while most will not contribute to articles you view as significant, some will.  And what you view as unimportant, some will undoubtedly view as important: to some, you are AFDing articles every bit as important as many of those whose AFDs are shot down or never attempted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A MySpace that calls itself the official website of a Christian rock band is evidence that a MySpace exists that calls itself the official website of a Christian rock band.  It isn't evidence that the Christian rock band actually exists.  MySpace is not a reliable secondary source; it's only valid as a source indicating that someone on MySpace said something specific. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Categories become useless overnight"?  What about using subcategories, such as :Category:Notable college football players?  This is addressed in the article.  And why does any fully-referenced and verifiable article reduce Wikipedia's credibility?  Why does one part of the encyclopedia covering trivial material reduce the quality of the other parts of the encyclopedia that cover important things? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "time wasted on nn articles by WikiGnomes taking time to stop vandalism, remove spam, categorize and keep to a reasonnable standard all these articles": See argument one under Arguments in favor of using notability."Point 1 is pure speculation": No, it's not.  At least, the argument that people leave Wikipedia when their articles are deleted isn't, it's quite easily verifiable.  That getting people involved in Wikipedia is an actively bad thing (rather than being at least slightly good, or neutral at worst) I find hard to accept, although in principle it's arguable."categories clogged with useless junk": No articles will be clogged with useless junk.  See argument two under Arguments in favor of using notability. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I didn't write the "Nn articles are beneficial" section, so don't be sorry to me : D . But I did look over it and either things were fine with me, or I weren't unsure enough about them to delete them. Definately fix it up - by all means. Fresheneesz 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly, I don't know what consensus was, I was just being bold.  Some of the section continues to beg the question: "The less frequent reading of nn articles is better than no reading at all." "Someone finds it worth reading."  Point 6 is also not a good argument because of the fact that such pages can be easily locked against recreation.  On review of the remainder, you're correct that it all makes reasonable points and should be included; I would either change the format of that section or the format of the next, though, and bring the names in sync. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nn articles are beneficial" 

message: Comment - actually a poor example. Autosexuality is entirely notable; the critiscism of the article, amongst other things, is that it is unsourced OR. TerriersFan 17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad example 

message: It's a point that I don't think is given enough attention. A lot of new contributors start out with nn articles and sometimes the AfD debates can get a little testy, leaving newbies with a feeling of being bitten. Overall the rest of Wikipedia has to compensate in trying to maintain a welcoming community. Letting newbies cut their teeth with nn, encouraging clean up and stub prodding with proper tags, can potentially encourage their growth into better editors--versus scaring them in the get-go. Agne27 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a point I bring up in my notability essay. I think this point, with the subjectivity and redundancy arguments, are the three most important in any discussion about the utility of notability. Ziggurat 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent essay. Overall, with this project page and your essay, my fears about maintaining the quality of Wikipedia are not completely alleviated but I certainly see the value in lessening the weight of notability.Agne27 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Actually, I think the best way to remove notability would be to make it completely redundant. This is possible just by clarifying the existing policies, especially WP:V and WP:RS, and if it's done properly the quality of Wikipedia overall will be significantly enhanced (sources are essential!) rather than diminished. I've had a few thoughts on this subject wandering around for a couple of years now (damn, I feel Wiki-old), and some day I may try to clarify and strengthen WP:V and WP:RS along those lines. I prefer to prove that the term is unnecessary rather than argue it :) Ziggurat 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The usual counterargument, which I do not endorse, is "So what?  They're only going to contribute to cruft anyway."  Some hard evidence might be useful, if someone were willing to dig it up, but it might be hard to come by (since how are you going to know what anyone would have done in the future?). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reply to that counterargument would point out that sentiment goes against Good Faith. Wikipedia is based on the assumption that every contributor brings with them value and worth in their contribution. Chasing away newbies because you don't think their contribution will be "up to snuff" is counterproductive to the Wikipedia spirit. It's much more beneficial to engage them and work with them in crafting quality articles rather then rushing to delete themAgne27 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reminded of an RfA candidate or two (successful ones) who started out with cruft and copyvios. As for "If you let everyone write on something as long as they can provide good sources, cruft will take over Wikipedia and it will be useless", I see it as the same argument as that against Wikipedia in general: "If you let everyone edit, they'll just vandalise Wikipedia and it'll be useless." I agree with them both to the same degree (that is, not at all :) Ziggurat 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biting the Newbies

message: That's what this proposal looks like.  It appears to be an attempt at removing all references of 'notability' or related terms from wikipedia.  The article title is almost improper.  This reads more like an essay on not using the term 'notability'.  The 'arguements for' the term contain lengthy counter-arguements to Wikipedia:Notability, and hardly sounds like good policy or guideline.  Sadly for this page, Wikipedia:Notability is written better than this.  It would need a nice cleanup to touch upon being a policy or guideline. Kevin_b_er 10:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This proposal *is* attempting to reduce the use of notability in article criteria (I don't know what you mean by "remove all references"). What did you think it would be? And thanks for the less than constructive criticism of our work. Would you care to offer any suggested improvements. Fresheneesz 19:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also wanted to note that this page is not the evil twin of WP:NN. It is an attempt at at pushing a guidline, rather than being an essay that simply discusses both sides of the argument - like WP:NN is. Fresheneesz 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet its written as an essay designed to counter Wikipedia:Notability.  It takes points of that essay and counters them one by one Its like an essay itself, despite the fact that you want it to become a guideline or policy. Kevin_b_er 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about that makes it less able to be a guideline? The essay on notability brings up points as to why notability is good for use as criteria - obviously this page tries to refute those claims in order to argue that it not be used as criteria. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Fresheneesz 08:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the word 'notable' in all forms from wikipedia? 

message: It seems a lot of people are criticizing the form (style, structure, stratedgy) of this proposal. Eg, "reads more like an essay than a proposal." I agree with all those criticisms but I'm clueless to solves them. Does anyone know a good example of an accepted proposal whose form we could emulate? Excuse my ignorance, but what the heck is a proposal supposed to look like anyway? --Ephilei 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would guess one thing this page does too much of is list points as to why there needs to be a guideline about this, rather than tell the guideline itself. But this proposal isn't complicated, it just suggests not using notabilty, and thn theres that nice section on how to fix articles. So I'm not sure how to cure this, other than shotening the arguments sections, or displaying more prominantly the actual guildeline part of the page. Fresheneesz 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking, maybe we could split off the argument portions to an actual essay page - therby making this page a short concise guideline, which of course would point to the essay as backup. I was thinking also that it would be a good idea to put the page at Essay:Non-notability, making it pretty clear that its an essay. Fresheneesz 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fresh, I think that is a great idea. You could also try and steer "debate" about the topic towards the Essay's discussion page and keep this one as focus on the framework of the guideline as possible.Agne27 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good plan. I'm looking for a little more support before I split up the page. Fresheneesz 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the idea. You have my support. --Ephilei 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good plan. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made the preliminary move of all the essay-like stuff. It looks pretty broken to me, does anyone see a way of making it look better? Fresheneesz 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An admin has deleted, and then moved the essay portion a couple times now. Apparently he doesn't like the idea that its in the "essay" namespace. I find it aggrivating that he isn't discussing a delete or move which is obviously contested. I think the Essay:Non-notability was a good place to put it, but now its at User:Fresheneesz/Non-notability. Its not *my* essay! Why is it there? Fresheneesz 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fiiine. What about Wikipedia:Essay: Non-notability and WP:E:NNOT, tho thats ugly. rrr. Oh well. I think for now I'll just move it to Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay. Fresheneesz 17:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no such thing as an "essay namespace".  Essays about Wikipedia go in the Wikipedia namespace.  Subpages are appropriate here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Form 

message: This part was deleted:
"They may be reoccurring pages that, once deleted, reappear because editors repeatedly think an article should be written about the certain subject."
I think its a valid arguement since it touches on the wasted effort that goes into deleting recurring pages. I'd like to know the reason for this passage's removal. Fresheneesz 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my discussion with Ephilei above.  Pages can be locked against recreation, and routinely are.  Look at :Category:Protected deleted pages: a couple thousand deleted pages are currently protected with a notice that they shouldn't be recreated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats true, but it doesn't refute the fact that there are recurring pages that aren't and shouldn't be locked. Fresheneesz 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example of this is MindTree, which was actually deleted several times and recreated with several alternate names after it was protected (1, 2, 3). It was deleted on terms of advertising (which it was) and recreation of deleted material (again, a good reason), but the original deletion was based on notability. The article was eventually expanded, sourced, and kept (4), and if someone had told the authors that they could just provide said sources and end the recreation battle it may have happened sooner. Ziggurat 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise some reasonable points.  I would merge them into a general argument about effort, if you're going to include such an argument at all.  (I don't think it's a particularly strong one, unless you can demonstrate a really overwhelming amount of effort spent: the answer is just "it's worth it", which is kind of impossible to refute.  Keeping arguments few and strong is an important aspect of good rhetoric.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agreed, it's not a very strong point. Ziggurat 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The majority of repeatedly created pages are vanity or spam, deleted by WP:AFD, often by strong consensus.  In my view the new page screen should highlight if there was a previously deleted version and why it was deleted.  I'm more likely than some to userfyvanity autobiographies, there are some editors who ignore all hints and persist despite use of  or equivalent text.  It is very hard to come up with a rule for re-created content which is not ridiculously overcomplicated; best in the end to leave it to common sense.  Just zis Guy you know? 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recurring articles 

message: I find myself dissagreeing with the summary, but agreeing with the body. In particular I dissagree with:
:"Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article"
Instead I think the summary should read:
:"Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information on Wikipedia – instead, official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability should be used. However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information."
I really do not mind if there are a million articles about schools, pets and teenage rock-bands that will never get a gig. But if "The Death-Thrash-Monkey-Killerz" want to appear on the Heavy Metal page, they better well have sold a few hundred thousand CDs. Perhaps this is covered by WP:NPOV#Undue weight but if this is the case, as the "nutshell" currently stands, it is directly contradicting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. On my understanding of WP:NPOV#Undue weight I actually don't think this is necessarily covered by it. For example if the Heavy Metal page contained a list of "sample Heavy Metal bands" then the only claim that is being made of the bands is that they play Heavy Metal, a claim that says nothing about how important a band they are. (Of course if the list was of "major Heavy Metal bands", then  WP:NPOV#Undue weight would apply.) WP:NPOV#Undue weight is designed for areas where there is uncertainty, e.g. in a Unified Field Theory article, there should be a larger mention of String theory, and a smaller mention of Loop Quantum Gravity, because both are considered possibilities, but one is considered more likely than the other. There is no uncertainty about whether "The Death-Thrash-Monkey-Killerz" are indeed a Heavy Metal band.
Within an article you want only the notable facts about that subject. I don't mind the non-notable facts being on WP, but I really don't want them getting in the way of the notable ones. --cfp 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I'm in complete agreement with all of that, especially the suggested nutshell rewrite.  Anyone disagree? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're head is in the right place, but I don't think the nutshell part contradicts undue weight - in fact since that is official guideline, the nutshell line was meant to include it with "official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability". Perhaps that needs to be more clear. I think your proposed addition is a good idea, i agree with that. Fresheneesz 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, be bold. Fresheneesz 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the wording is not yet right. Not only should articles be encyclopaedic but the content should be encyclopaedic. If a surgeon has a page, the information should be on his education, professional activities, papers he has written etc not a list of his cats and cars over the years, his views on garage music (permissable under these proposed guidelines if sourced since quotes do not contravene WP policies) or pictures of his annual summer holidays (all these things I have seen in articles!). TerriersFan 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  My rephrasal was designed to answer this very problem. The idea being that the surgeon's views on garage music would be moved off the surgeon's main page in accordance with: "However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information." I'm going to make the change on the main page, but if you have a clearer still rephrase of it, feel free to make it. --cfp 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity between the "nutshell" summary and the proposal body 

message: This section is referenced under the section Non-encyclopedic but is nowhere to be seen now.  What should it refer to now?  --Pkchan 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. 198.129.219.77 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issues are not encyclopedic 

message: At peak times up to 8 articles a minute are created so we are not short of articles. In the last four days 11,000 articles have been created; a rate of one million a year.
Already we are having to 'stub' or 'tag' numerous articles that fall short of quality standards in the vain hope that they will be improved. Already editors cannot keep up with the flood of pages needing attention. If we open this tap further, the effect will be that we shall lose complete control of quality, if we haven't already.
Further, the wider we open the net the fewer people will be interested enough in the subjects and the fewer editors there will be to develop and maintain them.
The effect of the concept of minor subjects not being encyclopaedic is that it simply moves the argument from notability to whether something is minor - in some cases a distinction without a difference.
However, what will change is that every schoolboy will be able to write an article on themselves and their mates (people are verifiable and not minor), every tiny company will be able to get a page (companies are verifiable and not minor), every saleable product can get a page, every street can get a page etc.
If Wikipedia becomes a receptacle for the trivial then there is a danger that its reputation for being a serious encyclopaedia will collapse. In turn this would send away the good editors.
Abandon notability at your peril! TerriersFan 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. Dbinder (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, what will change is that every schoolboy will be able to write an article on themselves and their mates (people are verifiable and not minor), every tiny company will be able to get a page (companies are verifiable and not minor), every saleable product can get a page, every street can get a page etc." This argument comes up a lot, and is based on a common misconception about what verifiability and reliable sources actually are. Can I suggest that you re-read WP:V and WP:RS to establish why this is not actually the case? Ziggurat 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read them and see no reason why my next-door neighbour's kid would not get an article - He can be verified from the Registry of Births, several mentions in his local paper, on his school's website, on his own website, in the parish magazine etc. And he has not done anything more than any other kid. Once the concept of notability goes, then provided someone is verifiable and sourced they are in - there will be no requirement that they have done anything interesting or important because that is what notability means! TerriersFan 04:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Of those sources, none save the Registry and the local paper even comes close to being a reliable source; the registry contains nothing but the fact of the birth, and is therefore irrelevant, and the local paper on its own isn't enough to satisfy "multiple third-party sources". Ziggurat 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice theoretical argument but in practice it won't wash. At the moment most articles that are created have inadequate sourcing. Therefore they are simply tagged. Indeed, if we insisted on multi-sourcing half the encyclopaedia would disappear. Are you proposing that once notability goes that articles without "multiple third-party sources" are deleted? Of course not; they will be tagged as now. The only difference being that trivial pages will survive. TerriersFan 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, if they're likely to have multiple third-party sources they get tagged. When it's clear that there aren't any (a Google / Gnews / Gbook search can establish that very quickly) they get nominated at AfD, just like now, and this is either established for certain or sources are discovered. It's really not different from the mechanism we have now, except that requiring sources is a much less subjective and contentious way to approach it. An article without sources is heresay, and really quite useless in the long run for any encyclopedia. What I always ask when having this conversation is whether someone can point me to an article that would be kept, except for the reasoning of notability. I've yet to see one falling under this criterion that actually deserves to be deleted, and this makes the concept of notability quite simply redundant. Even something as seemingly non-notable as a small-town railway station can be done well, and that's what we should be aiming for. Ziggurat 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit the nail right on the head: good articles with compelling prose is what we are aiming for, because the subject of an article is moot when even notable subjects can be poorly written.  However, Ziggurat, one must be careful about using argumentum ad google, I think they have said repeatedly that the entire internet isn't indexed yet.  For example, thumb fingernail may not be notable compared to fingernail, but if (say) enough is written about that particular fingernail in the parent article, it deserves its own article according to the way things are now. Also, while there are only 877 hits for the phrase "thumb fingernail", there are 13 billion of them on the planet. It can be demonstrated that Google is not God.[1][2][3][4][5] --DavidHOzAu 04:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability is a necessary concept 

message: Another repetitive issue is the argument formula More articles = less editors who care about subject = poorer quality level. Even though this issue has been answered time and again in the proposal and this talk page, it still persist because of the staying power of the above formula. We need something to counter that-something that is concise and catchy.Agne 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal thought is that this problem is entirely independent of the notability issue. Even if nothing changes, we can expect the rate at which articles are created and edited to carry on growing exponentially (for a while at least), thus whatever happens WP needs systems in place both to help editors narrow down the range of pages they are monitoring (see assorted suggestions about searching on the intersection of categories/tags on meta) and systems to mark pages as differing in quality (something to be partially addressed by the new verified page version system coming in, and partly by new tagging systems developed to aid taking snap shots of the good bits of WP). --cfp 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stock reply- Quantity vs Quality issue

message: The development of this guideline seems to have stopped, is this a good time to call for a discussion on making it a real guideline? Fresheneesz 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the ideas in the guideline, but before we call for its adoption, I'd like to suggest a bit more work to improve the quality of expression.  I've done some cleanup, but the proposal is still some way from being clear and concise.  -- JimR 07:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stagnant