Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 6

message: * Over at WP:DEP, most of the articles we are getting through these days are about non-notable websites. Where they are hard and futile to wikify, and where they are seemingly not worth the trouble of AfDing, since the result is invariably to delete, the most logical progression seems to me to be some kind of speedy deletion criteria for patent non-notability of websites (something akin to {db-bio} or {db-band}, maybe {db-site} or {db-web} i would have thought). are there any plans to introduce a criteria of this type? or does one already exist? Thanks. Jdcooper 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People will resist speedying website articles, and for understandable reasons, I guess. Often website articles can be speedied, but for other reasons. If they consist only of an external link and a short blurb basically restating the title of that link, for example, they fall under A3. But I think it's a better bet to just use WP:PROD, which is now policy. No need to clutter up AfD, and these things are usually uncontroversial. It's pretty painless. --W.marsh 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do, cheers. Jdcooper 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy? 

message: Nonetheless someone else has had the idea to create  halfway bypassing the real content of wikipedia:Notability (websites) to make a speedy delete criterion for web content (appended rather inappropriately to WP:CSD#A7)
That template is now up for deletetion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Template:Db-web. I voted for delete, while I think wikipedia:Notability (websites) doesn't fit all that well in a speedy deletion scheme, and while the template rather focusses on Alexa as notability criterion (which is not OK with wikipedia:Notability (websites) either), etc... (see vote commentaries when following the link above to the vote). --Francis Schonken 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy!

message: I've been seeing a few web comics deletion nominations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Thievery (webcomic) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcomics) and I think we could use some sort of rule. Here's my humble suggestion:
:I think the threshold of notability for web comics that would serve Wikipedia best is that the author makes money out of it (other than a few token from online advertising). Otherwise, we run the risk of having a flurry of vanity articles from anybody who draws.
Tell me what you think of this. Tony 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good enough for me- except that it might be difficult to verify who's making money. Borisblue 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, did you just reply to yourself? What happened? ericg ✈ 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. Is there a perceived shortcoming with the current guidelines? Do you feel there are web sites which don't meet the current guidelines that ought to be included? Or do you feel that there are web sites which meet the current guidelines that ought to be excluded? This sounds like a bad idea to me, not only because of difficulty with verification, but also because notability has little to do with profitability. A completely free web site covered by The New York Times and Washington Post is still notable. -- Dragonfiend 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's because the guidelines blow, and there is no concensus to apply them except within the rulecruft fandom pages like this one. 165.254.38.126 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this guideline simply restates the three key policies, I'm not sure how it blows. As the three key policies have the consensus of the community, I'm not sure how you state there is no consensus to apply them.  Hiding The wikipedian meme 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it simply restated them then there would be no need for it. It does not - it introduces the concept of "what I like". It's bogus, and should be dropped before it does more damage to the principle of a neutral point of view. 165.254.38.126 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bald bad faith assumption.  Perhaps you can show me where it does that.  It simply states that articles require third party sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a bad faith assumption to assume that that was a bad faith assumption! Notability goes far beyond verifiability, and introduces the idea that what one person thinks is unimportant should be deleted. For great justice. 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tentative rule for notability 

message: Let's nip it early - the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it.  If people here show some interest in actually dealing with memes, it might be worth it further, but past discussions haven't been fruitful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that all 'notability' material be deleted as 'not notable'. I reject the concept as institutionalization of POV, which is against current policy. For great justice. 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence makes no sense to me.  The second is an oxymoron. If current policy did oppose institutionalization of POV, that would represent an institutional point of view. Hiding Talk 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's simple. I think all of the rulecruft associated with 'notability' should be deleted. Current policy says that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and which articles get to be written is also a matter of NPOV. The articles on Democrats and Republicans need to be written from a neutral point of view, but you must also not exclude articles based on your pov. You can't not have an article on the democrats just because you don't like them or are not interested in them. Ergo, a guideline that enshrines a small groups POV as inclusion policy is in breach of WP:NPOV. For great justice. 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to misunderstand our aims.  We don't want to ignore verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view.  We wan't to add new requirements for notability, not subtract old policies.--Urthogie 10:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to misunderstand my position, which is that this guideline is enough, and already applies.  People should start using this in afd's rather than build more guidelines. If you agree with the three policies then I'm not sure why this guideline fails, since this guideline is based upon the three policies; it states that a meme is notable if it has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.  That's the position of the verifiability policy.  Perhaps if people could illuminkate me as to how these guidelines fail, I'd change my position, but as yet all I've been told is that these guidelines are too tough.  That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what our policies are.  WP:V states that if an article topic cannot be verified in third party, reputable sources it shouldn't exist.  A primary source is not enough to write an article from.  Now people have attempted to argue that this is a bias against online sources, but I fail to see that since this guidance offers no evaluation of sources.  It's a redundant argument, and one that the people espousing it fail to follow through on.  When I have asked what they would consider reliable sources, they fail to provide them.  There's no sense that anyone is attempting to communicate on the issue at all, rather we sit on two hilltops firing broadsides. Hiding Talk 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right that there will never be agreement on this, since notabilty inherently means 'What I Like'. What you like will always be different to what others like. You may get apparent agreement of the people in the room about 'What Slashdot Editors Like', and be able to get that passed a process, but it does not represent 'What Islamic Historians Like'. It's enshrining a POV. For great justice. 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say.  Actually I think it's a rough and ready guide to whether there is likely to be enough independent interest to ensure that we can verify that the subject is being covered neutrally.  Too many people think that notability relates only to WP:NOT (indiscriminate).  It doesn't.  Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just enshrining one groups' view of what is important. For great justice. 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Request 

message: I discovered something I wrote in the archives of this talk page which is germane to badlydrawnjeff's assertion that the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it.
*It is worth remembering these guidelines are just that, and that if consensus at afd doesn't agree with them, that is unimportant, as they are only here as guidelines on whether to start an article  or not.
That these guidelines aren't used at afd is not wholly important.  That they exist and people can be pointed to them is.  Many afd's are not closed properly by admins, who seem to forget that WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are non-negotiable.  No consensus at afd can trump the three policies, and, if we take those three policies as they read, any article which cannot be verified in outside sources should be deleted.  Whilst that is not happening all the time, it doesn't mean those aren't the goals, it means that admins get it wrong, or that good faith in the project is extended, or that afd is broken.  Eventually, all articles that exist now will be of the standard detailed in those three policies, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and also, there will just be newer ones that don't.  That these guidelines are currently ignored for memes isn't a reason why they don't apply to memes, it just means that they should be applied to memes. Hiding Talk 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to misunderstand our aims.  We don't want to ignore verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view.  We wan't to add new requirements for notability, not subtract old policies.--Urthogie 10:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to misunderstand my position, which is that this guideline is enough, and already applies.  People should start using this in afd's rather than build more guidelines. If you agree with the three policies then I'm not sure why this guideline fails, since this guideline is based upon the three policies; it states that a meme is notable if it has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.  That's the position of the verifiability policy.  Perhaps if people could illuminkate me as to how these guidelines fail, I'd change my position, but as yet all I've been told is that these guidelines are too tough.  That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what our policies are.  WP:V states that if an article topic cannot be verified in third party, reputable sources it shouldn't exist.  A primary source is not enough to write an article from.  Now people have attempted to argue that this is a bias against online sources, but I fail to see that since this guidance offers no evaluation of sources.  It's a redundant argument, and one that the people espousing it fail to follow through on.  When I have asked what they would consider reliable sources, they fail to provide them.  There's no sense that anyone is attempting to communicate on the issue at all, rather we sit on two hilltops firing broadsides. Hiding Talk 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right that there will never be agreement on this, since notabilty inherently means 'What I Like'. What you like will always be different to what others like. You may get apparent agreement of the people in the room about 'What Slashdot Editors Like', and be able to get that passed a process, but it does not represent 'What Islamic Historians Like'. It's enshrining a POV. For great justice. 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say.  Actually I think it's a rough and ready guide to whether there is likely to be enough independent interest to ensure that we can verify that the subject is being covered neutrally.  Too many people think that notability relates only to WP:NOT (indiscriminate).  It doesn't.  Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just enshrining one groups' view of what is important. For great justice. 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WEB]] failing at afd for memes 

message: I suggest that the proposed guideline being discussed and worked on at WP:MEMES be merged into this one at WP:WEB. I don't think this would actually take much work; simply adding "memes" to the list of things which "Web content includes, but is not limited to," would probably do it. -- Dragonfiend 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is worth considering, but first we should wait and see the results of the Notability proposal.--Urthogie 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That wouldn't solve the issue, I think.  People ignore WP:WEB because its too overarching.--Urthogie 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Really, I don't want to see any internet fads in Wikipedia.  I tolerate a few of them like AYB because it's made news, but I find most of them to be juvenile, stupid, far from funny, and a waste of brain space.  I'd like to see them barred outright from Wikipedia, but I suspect that won't happen.  I don't like the current proposal at WP:MEMES because it's too inclusive and allows secondary-source commentary on a primary source published only on the internet.  I also want to make my ideas clear so that when someone quotes policy at me in the future and declares it to be "consensus" I can say that I disagreed when I had the chance.  Wikipedia isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica, and shouldn't aspire to be.  In fact, it should try not to be like Encyclopedia Dramatica.  There.  I'm done, so thanks for reading. Brian G. Crawford 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which further explains why we need a policy.  You're on the far end of exclusionism, I'm on the far end of inclusionism.  So what do we do to reach a middle ground that makes sense.  I don't know if I've seen you over at WP:MEMES yet to give your two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was over there too.  I was trying to get across the point that pages on meanspirited internet fads like Brian Peppers should be excluded.  Of course, I'm in the minority on that, but perhaps WP:OFFICE actions will take care of some of that.  I've publicly shamed people in writing as a newspaper reporter, because I had to do it to get paid.  I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it for free. Brian G. Crawford 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The middle ground that makes sense is to dump 'notability' for the problematic POV that it is. Get back to the basics of verifiable, well sourced articles, and these issues disapear. For great justice. 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote andy warhol, in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.  Let's not make it 16.--Urthogie 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point?! For great justice. 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been mentioned in match reports in the South London Press, my photo has appeared in another local paper, my birth date, marriage date and addresses are matters of public record, my blog is a reliable source for content about myself, the schools I attended can be referenced online, where's my article? Hiding Talk 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, someone could write an article about you, if there's enough to say to make it more than a phone book entry, and did not consist entirely of local news reports, and if they did, then I don't think there'd be any harm. But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy. Again, no problem, no need for rulecruft! For great justice. 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great justice, your view has been proven impractical-- you've essentially admitted that, under your system of bare bones verifiability and npov, a janitor mentioned in a local newspaper could have an article.  I think I can easily make the following generalization of that view: the community, for the most part, doesn't agree with it.--Urthogie 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it hasn't. One: 'The community' agrees with me enough that every time 'notability' has been voted on as proposed policy it has been rejected - obviously, on a page working on more of it, there are more people in favor. Two: my view has not been 'proven' anything. Everytime I show you common sense, you bring out more and more bizarre examples. I show you why you're wrong about you being able to have an article, you bring out a mythical janitor that doesn't have an article. Please. Let's stick to the facts. For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not even going to let you off that easy.  You say "But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy."  Prove it.  Cite me the policies. Hiding Talk 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't prove a negative - there is no article on you, so I can't speak to particulars. Write one, and we'll see, but I would imagine that there is simply not enough information that is actually verifiable to write more than a phone book entry. But, having said that, I don't know you, there may be a lot of verfiable information, and a great article to be written - if it bothers you - write it and we'll see. One of the problems is that all you are doing is speculating on cases that might exist at some time in the future if people acted in ways they never usually do. For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll do it for you.  It's a speedy deletion criterion, namely article criterion #7, An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.  Notability is already enshrined in policy despite your arguments to the contrary. And I'm not speculating on what might exist, I could cite any number of articles that did exist but were deleted under this criterion. You seem to believe short entires should be deleted.  I take it you are aware of the stub concept. Hiding Talk 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ?How do you know if it should be deleted if you havn't written it?! That's just silly. For great justice. 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't like it, neither do I, but thankfully that will never be criteria for inclusion! For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion that WP:MEMES be merged into WP:WEB 

message: I sugest that the proposed guideline be deleted, and that we all get back to the business of editing and writing articles. 165.254.38.126 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, agree - it should go - see Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability. For great justice. 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion that Wikipedia:Notability be merged into '''Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense'''

message: Vote support or oppose if you agree with the following:
:Please note that [Polls are evil http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polls_are_evil]. For great justice. 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lets make some things clear