Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 9

message: Please take a look at the new proposed guideline for news stories, and the discussion of whether something can be newsworthy and get widespread coverage, without being encyclopedic. Edison 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blech.  Basically it's saying that we can't create articles on things that have been in the news, no matter how widely covered or how deeply, *unless* we can also provide book references.  It completely sucks, it will core wikipedia.  That's my opinion, it's discouraging. Wjhonson 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposed guideline: [[Wikipedia:Notability (news)]]

message: Due to some disputes in Chinese Wikipedia，Notability Policy had been translated into Chinese as :zh:Wikipedia:知名度. But after some modification, "The primary notability criterion" in Chinese version had been changed to "如果一個主題被多份（>=2）獨立可靠文獻深入介紹，則該主題滿足知名度標準。" (rough traslation: "A topic meets notability criterion if it has been the subject of multiple, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself, and it is described in depth in the article.") I don't know this modification is appropriate or not. So I want to ask: "Is notbility related to the content depth of the article?" --Littlebtc 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yes, "described in depth" is analogous to "non-trivial". —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Similar, but not synonomous.  I think that non-trivial is a poor choice which I hope to see changed, but it seems to be close to significant and less than important.  To me "in depth" imparts a stronger image than significant. --Kevin Murray 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * So far all attempts to define notable end up using equally vague words like "non-trivial", significant, sufficient, prominent etc.  These words only have meaning in the context of their use, and leave our guidelines open to subjective interpretation.  I think it's a circle at best. --Kevin Murray 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese version policy discussion 

message: I nominated Wikinfo for deletion here and would welcome more opinions (support or oppose). It had two previous AfDs, here and here, and arguments so far refer back to them. 
My contention is mostly that it does not qualify as notable under any of the guidelines at WP:WEB, having received only trivial mentions in a small number of sources. Because of this, I also contend that it can't be verified; a lot of the information in the article is cited directly to the Wikinfo website. Their contention is mostly that, as a fork of a notable project (Wikipedia), it becomes notable itself. Comment were also made on the large web footprint it has.
Discussion in the AfD would be very welcome because, to me, this seems clearly not notable (and not verifiable), yet it has survived two AfDs because people think it is. If it is, my understanding of notability is clearly very flawed, and I probably shouldn't be involved in deletion.  Trebor 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are accurately characterizing the Wikinfo supporters' stance, that stance strikes me as totally bankrupt.  Given the open nature of the WikiMedia code and content, I could right now fork my own Stantonpedia, and change articles to talk about my personal opinion of them.  That silly blogopedic endeavour (which would also have a large "footprint", being the same size as WP when the copy was ripped, plus my new commentary) would not somehow be notable just because the original source of the material was.  Ick! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rescind some of my earlier comment, with regard to Wikinfo in particular due to the details of its particular situation (see the AfD for specifics), but not as applied generally. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, primary sourcing is entirely legitimate in the article in terms of the basics. It may lack the "non-trivial" sources required by WP:WEB for notability, however, which is the problem. More of a reason to support T&E's proposal, in my mind - it has sufficient sources for "notability," and "notability" absolutely branches out in this way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it qualify under T&E's proposal? It hasn't been a central subject of anything, as far as I can see. Trebor 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not, but it would at least have a better chance - I can't read the first source where I'm at in any regard.   --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. The second source has one sentence on it, and the third, one paragraph (out of a long list of other wikis). That's not really a lot of independent coverage. Trebor 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikinfo]] AfD

message: I think the thrust of this notability policy is completely wrongheaded. It has resulted in the deletion of numerous useful pages from Wikipedia in my experience. Either Wikipedia aims to be encyclic, or it aims to be synoptic. The current policy is a reduction of scope toward synopsis, making Wikipedia a mere summary of other easily obtained sources and not an encyclopedic reference. Right now, people use Wikipedia to find information that they cannot easily find elsewhere. The current notability guidelines say, in effect, that a subject is deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia only if information on the subject is already easily available. If this policy is pursued to its stated purpose final end, it will make Wikipedia unnecessary and redundant. Why Wikipedia then? Halfelven 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound like you have a problem with Wikipedia requiring verified information, more than the concept of notability. An encyclopaedia should be a summary (or at least a logical organisation) of information from existing sources; it shouldn't be used to advance new theories or positions. Information on the subject does not need to be easily available, but it does need to exist. If you think an attempt to logically organise and précis of the sum of all knowledge is unnecessary and redundant, then yes Wikipedia is. But I, for one, find it very useful. Trebor 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find myself agreeing with Halfelven. The issue of notability seems to be a club to beat down articles with which some editor either doesn't like or doesn't appreciate. Perhaps it's better to expand the criteria for inclusion so that lack of notability isn't the sole reason someone can delete an article. It's true that Wikipedia shouldn't become Google, but it's certainly the first place I stop when I'm researching something - if only because there are usually good links to source material. I can't think of a single good reason to delete unique articles about a subject, even if the subject is of minor interest. By unique, I mean "the only" article. If a subject has more than one article already, then posting another, similar, entry is pointless. However, a new entry covering some topic people may not know about, or topics that people want to know about, shouldn't be deleted for being non-notable unless it violates some other rule, such as not having verifiable sources, is a duplicate of something already posted, or is a trivial article. (Non-notable and trivial... then it should definitely be gone.) TomXP411 07:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I concur with Trebor and disagree with Halfelven and TomXP411.  Besides the Verifiability policy, it sounds like Halfelven and TomXP411 have a problem with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically the part about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of random information, as well as Wikipedia:No original research.  If someone wants to know about something not already on Wikipedia, then they can do the research into verified sources and post an article cited to such sources.  I've done that myself on many occasions for obscure articles like Department of Public Safety. Any compromise on WP:NOR or WP:NOT (which is what compromising on Notability amounts to) is going to turn Wikipedia into a hotbed of unverified speculation, of which there is already enough in the blogosphere and Web sites in general.  We need to have strong content policies in order to be able to flush out such garbage in a principled manner in the Articles for deletion process. --Coolcaesar 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may like to look at this AfD. Stephen B Streater 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Halfelven and TomXP411. Notability is meaningless and subjective, and is being used as a tool to delete anything that certain editors don't find personally subjectively interesting. Verifiability is important.Vampyrecat 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability - Why Wikipedia? 

message: All you need is a search engine:
[]
Milivella 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. What about information not on the internet? Trebor 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples? Anyway, we could wait Google scanning every book ever printed... ;) Milivella 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspaper articles which haven't been archived. Scientific papers on obscure topics that aren't on Google Scholar. Books on historical events. Google is not the be-all and end-all. Trebor 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But please show me one (or more) Wikipedia voices about something no indexed by Google: it wuold be very intersting to me. Milivella 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, everything on Wikipedia now is on Google, along with mirrors. But also, your method doesn't take into account quality of results; a few fact-checked reliable sources are worth a million blog entries. Trebor 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Google only has things on the web, and then only things which can be accessed for free. Lots of things happened before the web, and lots of high quality information is subscription only. I have just seen a very interesting (commercial) DVD which has David Attenborough talking about the early days of BBC Two - much more suitable for Wikipedia than Google. Stephen B Streater 09:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Beware: I don't say that you should use the "common web opinion" to write an article: reliable sources are the only way. But you could check what is often cited about a given topic to decide which informations (takne from to reliable sources!) to include. To talk about concrete examples: take the examples of stories within a story cited here []. Some examples are, IMHO, clearly not relevant (or, at least, arbitrary chosen) when you speak about the concept of "story within a story". With a formula like mine, you should demonstrate that this concept is important to understand a Quantum Leap novel, but the inverse is not true. Milivella 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An objective method to evaluate notability 

message: Sorry for the cross-posting... There is an ongoing discussion on whether or not the long-standing proposed guideline for the notability of books should be tagged as a guideline. Everyone's input would be really appreciated as past discussions have often involved a handful of editors, making it hard to judge consensus. Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should WP:BK be made a guideline? 

message: The notability article states:
* A major criterion is that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
and
* One rationale for this criterion is the fact that sources independent of a subject have noted the topic in depth (by creating multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.
To me, theres an implied definition that I think should be made more explicit, because it's never actually stated in the wording at the moment:
:
Proposed addition:
"Sources independent of a subject" means sources with a direct or indirect interest in promoting the subject, for example, affiliates, fans, beneficiaries, and proponent groups, whose connection means that even if they note the subject, it is not a good indication of wider notability.
Would others be okay with this (or something like it) being added to the guideline? FT2 (Talk | email) 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add "or affiliation". —Centrx→talk • 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were only two papers on a scientific theory, an entire article on that scientific theory would not be appropriate for the encyclopedia. Any notable scientific theory here is going to have dozens if not hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on it. —Centrx→talk • 01:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also thinks this goes too far. A lot of the most valuabel sources comes from media that is connected - e.g. the Catholic Times reporting on events in the Catholic Church, the Jewish Chronicle reporting about the Chief Rabbi or the Times of India reporting about an election in Kerala. I don't think there's anything wrong with using these sources as long as their bias is appropriately noted. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about simply using these sources, it is about having an entire article supported only by these sources. If the only sources about the Catholic Church were in the Catholic Times, an article about it would not be appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 01:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification suggestion to wording 

message: A topic is notable and suitable for an article if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other
Or is it? Surely this is just an indication of notability rather than a proof. See example cited at WP:NOTNEWS AndrewRT(Talk) 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Properly, purely news items would not be "non-trivial" nor "independent". —Centrx→talk • 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Or is it? 

message: With dozens of links to similar pages and talk pages, I really don't know where to start, and I have certainly not read everything on this topic, but I hope someone will be able to answer my question and/or refer me to a page where I can read up on it:
What makes George E. Pugh more notable than Matt Beaumont?
I'm not trying to be funny here, and I know that those two individuals have nothing whatsoever in common except the fact that both articles are considered under the title "Biography". I was just wondering why the existence of Beaumont's biography seems contentious whereas Pugh's is not. <KF> 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BIO and WP:BLP are two good places to start. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! <KF> 00:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies -- notability 

message: I ask because it's becoming awfully misleading awfully fast.  The guideline itself acts as a pointer to the individual subject-specific guidelines, and, contrary to the wording here, "nearly all" of them do not, in fact, share the criterion.  The section should probably be reworded to reflect this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowing nothing other than "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", can't we safely conclude that the main factor that allows encyclopedia articles to exist is sufficient coverage of the subject matter in external sources?  Perhaps "notability" is a poor word for this- like "verifiability", this term has some extra meaning on Wikipedia beside its plain English reading.  But, it's the word we have, and if we understand it to mean "encyclopedic notability", I think it works well enough.  What is the single most important qualification for a thing to have an encyclopedia article?  It's not our own opinions on it, it's sources.  Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that specifically does not do original research, sources must be of primary importance.  Friday (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if we can "safely conclude" that.  Again, we've apparently decided as a community that verifiability is not enough.  "Notability" is something else entirely, and can exist without these so-called non-trivial sources that people want to force as "primary."  No one's asking for original research, and no one's saying sources aren't important, but the question is whether they are for the sake of "notability," which is an entirely different concept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget what "notability" means in real life then- pretend it's shorthand for "can this subject be covered by Wikipedia?"  In practical terms, this is the important question, right?  If we don't stay tightly focused on practical concerns, aren't we just spinning our philosophical wheels?  Friday (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to keep it that simple - the question is, does anyone else want to?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the mentioning of the "primary" criteria is a step toward simplification.  People don't want to give up their subject-specific guidelines yet.  Friday (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I see it the opposite way - the "primary" criteria complicates matters by conflating "notability" with verifiability.  It fails to accept the reality that "notability" exists without the major media noticing it, which the individual criteria do a better job recognizing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been addressed several times before. Notability is not conflated with verifiability. —Centrx→talk • 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's little evidence that's the case, judging from the discussions.  That's why I'm brigning it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Anything that isn't covered by proper sources is not relevant here.  It's outside the scope of things that Wikipedia cares about.  What you're describing is the individual criteria being given greater weight than WP:V, which is absolutely what we do not want.  I could cure cancer in my garage tomorrow and tell noone- despite this being a "notable achievement", it's not Wikipedia-notable.  Friday (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "here?"  At the project in general (I agree) or at this criteria (I do not)?  I'm not describing anything of the sort - WP:V has no dog in this fight, it's a) more important than "notability," and b) does not handle "notability."  On the other hand, you could publish a book about your curing cancer, no one bother to note the book, but still be "wikipedia notable."  Maybe not "Wikipedia verifiable," but that's - again - a completely different argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think part of the problem is that AfD has used "Wikipedia notability" as a substitute for "Wikipedia verifiability" for so long that most newcomers get the impression that notability is verifiability.  Which creates great confusion when people, especially newcomers, come to an AfD page and think, well it's notable so it must conform to WP:V, and then people point out that's not the case.  (There's also the tangent that when people think it's notable it doesn't need to conform to WP:V, but that's really another issue.) ColourBurst 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (reindenting) I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think this helps.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, any controversial claims in an encyclopedia need to be well-sourced, including claims of notability. -- Dragonfiend 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally tend to see notability and verifiability as related but not the same. A lot of things are verifiable, but not notable. I can verify for you that the local pizzeria around the corner exists. They're listed in the Yellow Pages (a perfectly reliable source), and in the local business guide here (another perfectly reliable source). They've advertised in the local paper (presumably, someone paid for that ad!). The problem is, all we can say with that information is "They exist, and they make pizzas". What notability looks to ask goes further than simple reliability. It does not ask "Is verifiable information available about this?" It asks "Is enough verifiable information available about this that we can have a comprehensive article about it without engaging in original research, or trusting primary sources which may be self-serving?" In that vein, this is the primary criterion, and that's the only thing we should be asking. The secondary guidelines should be treated as guides to when that sufficiency is likely to exist, not an establishment of notability in and of themselves when that information is demonstrably absent. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's where you lose me.  Super Mega Band does an international tour, they're "notable."  They may not have the proper sources to be "verifiable," however.  I disagree that this is the "primary" criterion on that regard alone - it's not shared even close to universally, and it doesn't confer "notability," but what we already expect from verifiability, something that has already somewhat been decided - that even though something is "verifiable," it's not "notable."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it ''really'' primary? 

message: I've seen one editor comment that independent news articles about a subject that come out on the same day count as one reference. Another aggregated three articles over a period of three days as counting as only one reference, so as to give an argument that the subject was not the topic of multiple, independent, reliable published sources. Can we include this in the guideline, since this is being done in practice in AfDs? Sancho McCann 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Associated Press crated and ran a story on a news event. that is one source. If the AP story was reprinted by the New York Times and the Washington Post and was run verbatim on the BBC, it is still one source. If the NY Times, the Wash Post and the BBC wrote their own stories, i.e. their reporters investigated the incident and wrote it up and they published it, that would be 3 additional stories. If all the stories ran on a single day, then perhaps it is a good news story but it mayt or may not be something which needs to have for everafter an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOTNEWS for a proposal which addresses this. Edison 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple references counted as one 

message: I recently added the statement:
In addition to this primary notability criterion, in practice, there are many precedents set in the discussion of articles nominated for deletion that are used to judge the notability of an article. To avoid the creation of an article that may be deleted by the community, please also read Deletion Precedents.
to the Primary notability criterion section. It was reverted by another editor because consensus can change. So I ask, what is a better way to inform members that this primary notability criterion is not the only criterion used to judge notability other than a pointer to current precedent? I think it's important that this is emphasized. This would be a benefit to the community by discouraging the creation of some articles that would be judged non-notable in an AfD, not by their failing to meet the primary criterion, but by violating decisions that have been set by precedent. It would also be a benefit to new members to have a realistic view of what is deemed notable by the community. The current structure of the page gives the illusion that a subject must simply meet the primary criterion, but in practice, many editors argue that subjects must meet stronger criteria. Sancho McCann 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline already points people to the individual criteria for specific subjects, that should do the trick.  We can't contradict ourselves with precedents when we go out of our way to note that we don't do precedents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm specifically concerned about WP:BIO, as it seems to be in such a state of flux. Until that's settled, what can a new user rely on? If editors do use more than the primary criterion in their arguments shouldn't we report it to new users? Sancho McCann 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The state of flux is entirely temporary.  The basic standards still exist, it's just a question of levels which will be solved sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also see that you've nominated the precedent page for deletion. I will support that. It will make things less confusing for new users and it will force us to write more descriptive notability guidelines.  Sancho McCann 22:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *As the deletion debate should indicate, the statement that "we don't do precedent" is simply false. We do a lot of things by precedent, and "consensus can change" doesn't mean "ignore previous consensus". >Radiant< 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis on precedent 

message: Greetings all.  I seek your opinions on the question posed in the section-heading.  I would be especially grateful for answers from some of the main authors of the notability guidelines.To explain: as I interpret them, the guidelines are as to whether or not a topic may have an article about it on Wikipedia, and are not rightly applicable to the content of WP articles.  That is, WP articles must be on topics that are WP-notable ("notable" in the sense explained by the guidelines), but material within a given article need not be WP-notable in itself.  This is never said straight-out in the guidelines (unless I have overlooked it therein) but seems to underlie them, tacitly, throughout and considered as a whole.  It also seems like no more than common sense:  To take the contrary view is to insist that nothing may appear in a WP article that is not itself noteworthy enough to have an article of its own.  So in other words, unless I am mistaken, the notability guidelines set forth a criterion for whether a WP article may exist at all, and are not concerned with whether this or that may be included in an article, given its existence on WP.  Particular bits of content within an article still need reliable sources, of course, but a single reliable source is enough for any given bit.I ask about this matter because I have come across editors who are, I believe, abusing the notability guidelines as a pretext to strip information from articles, or to attempt to do so, claiming "not notable" and relying upon these guidelines for authoritative support.  I suspect that they are mis-applying the concept (whether in honest error or not, I am unsure).So please give your views on whether, and how, and to what extent these notability guidelines are meant to apply within an existing article, as against applying to the very existence of an article.  Depending upon the consensus among the answers, some clarification of the guidelines might also be in order.Thanks -- Lonewolf BC 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability does not apply to the content of articles.  Although other things would apply like POV and Undue Weight, etc. Wjhonson 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Wjhonson -- and yes, of course other considerations apply to what belongs in WP articles, but I am asking specifically about "notability" (in sense set forth in these guidelines).Anyone else?  I regret to say that Wjhonson's answer, alone, is unlikely to convince the editors whom I mentioned above that they are mis-applying "notability".  So please join in, even if just to say that you concur.  I hope for enough answers to show a clear consensus. -- Lonewolf BC 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Notability is most often talked about in the context of whether an article on a given subject could exist.  However, people may object to some article content as being trivial or too specific, and they may use the word "notability" in that context.  For example, while we have an article on the Dodge Magnum, for example, if someone tried to add information saying "Bill Smith, one of the line workers at the so-and-so production facility, has personally tightened bolts on over 10,000 Magnums", this would be removed on the grounds that this information isn't notable.  Without knowing what you're specifically talking about, I can't comment more than that.  Friday (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, but you seem somewhat to have misunderstood the question.  To keep the issue clear, I'm asking specifically about the applicability of these guidelines to the content within articles, and for the present purposes I am considering "notable" and "notability" to have the meanings set forth in these guidelines.  I do not seek an assessment of any specific case; this is a question about the principles.I have noticed, of course, that "notability" and akin terms are sometimes used with reference to issues of article-content, and that is largely why I've raised the question that I have.  Do these guidelines rightly apply? -- Lonewolf BC 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These guidelines are about article topics not facts. Any problem with notable or non-notable facts can be dealt with by looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Trivia/Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also above section. As alluded to there, Wikipedia:Notability does not apply to whether an individual fact or statement should be included in an article (though if that individual fact were to have been put in a separate article, Wikipedia:Notability would entail that it should be merged). Note, however, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves and at several places in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Information should generally be relevant to why the person is notable; Margaret Thatcher being an amateur painter or somesuch would not warrant an entire section in the article about her, though it might warrant a mention in the biography section. —Centrx→talk • 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That seems a clear answer, from the second sentence.  (See below, though.) -- Lonewolf BC 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There should be reference to the concept of notability that can be found, for example, in WP:BLP and WP:RS. These do directly refer to notability and are about a certain aspect of the notability already here; this Wikipedia:Notability page is about "notability" on Wikipedia, and it should certainly not make it appear that notability is completely irrelevant to article content. Other than that, I think the text could probably be shorter, but that's not an objection to adding it. —Centrx→talk • 06:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  I'm not altogether sure what you mean, but if I rightly understand you then you mean that where the term "notability" appears elsewhere in Wikipedia guidelines -- notably (ha-ha) in the expression "relevant to ... notability", and its variants -- it does mean the same as in these guidelines (whereas the "notability" in talk-page discussions about article content generally does not).  I'll recompose the draft, to work that in. -- Lonewolf BC 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Redundant?  I don't think so.  Those other discussions seem to be about quite different issues.  This, here, proposes a new paragraph to put into the guidelines, most likely among the introductory paragraphs.  Those other discussions are about ... some fairly arcane points about the existing introductory paragraphs, as best as I can make out.Perhaps I should move this whole thing to the bottom of the page, where it would be easier to find, but I'm giving ample opportunity for anyone to comment, and using edit-summaries to suit.  I surely hope that anyone concerned won't wait till after I insert this to comment upon it or object to it.-- Lonewolf BC 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I object to your message, but I don't think we need to add more text volume to the guideline.  I'd prefer a broader approach in developing a clean and tight guideline.  I don't think that you have anywhere near a consensus for this being added at this point. --Kevin Murray 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Has there really been any problem with misinterpretation of the notability guideline this way? Certainly, articles on a notable subject might include things which are not in and of themselves notable (for example, "Population of Denver" would not be an appropriate article subject, but it's certainly appropriate for inclusion in the :Denver article.) While content of an article should all be sourced, I've never seen anyone arguing that each individual heading or sentence requires the same standards as we have for whole articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seraph, strange as it may seem, yes there has been a problem with such misrepresentation.  That's why I am bothering with this whole business.  There are those who need it spelled out to them.  I am glad to see you so firmly and unequivocally agree with what I have always considered the only sensible interpretation of these guidelines.  However there are those who have been using calls of "not notable!" to strip information from articles, or try to do so, and appealing to the authority of these guidelines as back-up.  It's quite annoying, and is harmful to Wikipedia.  I'm trying to put a stop to it.Kevin, I am glad that at least you don't object to the central idea.  For the reasons just given there is a need to add this clarifying paragraph (or one like it) to these guidelines.  I guess you've never met a notability-abusing editor -- lucky you.  If you had, I doubt that you'd doubt the need.  This addition will actually tighten the guidelines, which are now open to misrepresentation because they nowhere say these things explicitly.If you think the writing needs betterment, have a go yourself.  I really don't see what you mean by your criticisms of my draft, though.  I tried to make the wording airtight, because based on my experience it shall need to be.  I think I've made the paragraph crystal clear, and just the length it needs to be so as to be that clear.As for consensus, "silence means approval".  However I am actually glad to get some further participation, a prior, from other editors, even though it is mildly critical so far.  I really don't want this to be a one-man effort -- partly because the notability-abusers would jump on that as a pretext to ignore the paragraph, partly because I don't want any messy wrangling to affect the the project page, and partly out of pure collegiality. -- Lonewolf BC 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do they speak english where you live? --Kevin Murray 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even where, they live, so it seems.  Look, most people can read this stuff between the lines.  The target, here, is people who can't (or won't) do that, and are wedded to an odd interpretation.  Thus the need to be explicit and detailed. -- Lonewolf BC 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I don't dispute that an explanation of the topic is warranted but not as part of the guideline.  Please read WP:CREEP.  Less can be more since people are more likely to read it. --Kevin Murray 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Consider putting the bare essentials in the guideline with an explanation in a footnote and detailed discussion in a linked essay. --Kevin Murray 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that there is value in brevity, the paragraph is not an instruction, but an explanation of something important.  "Creep" thus does not really apply -- to the paragraph itself, that is.  Nor does it tell me anything I didn't know.  It does, however, contain a useful quote from Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler [my italics]."  Less than what I've written would be too simple to be effective, for reasons I've already given.  Given that you agree than an explanation of the topic is warranted, the question (as between you and me, at least) then becomes where to put it.  I suppose that this is where you believe "instruction creep" really enters the picture.  I respectfully disagree that the brief paragraph I've proposed is troublesome in that regard.  It is not so long, and every word of it needs saying, to block avenues of possible misinterpretation -- so it really is the "bare essentials", already.Therfore, it ought be put it right in the guidelines, where folk will see it.  If need be, give it a heading, so that people who don't need to read it won't -- that might be a good idea, also, from the viewpoint of making it an easier find for those who do need to read it, and for pointing to it from off-page.  As for making it a linked essay, it is far too short for that, and doing so would greatly weaken its force, as against a plain appearance in the guidelines.  Making it a footnote likewise would weaken it, through textual obscurity and by implicitly lessening its importance.  So I think a straightforward place in the guidelines, perhaps under a heading or sub-heading, is the way to go.-- Lonewolf BC 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LW, I don't so much object to what you have to say as the way you say it.  You make arguments, write essays, and draft wonderful speeches, but you don't succinctly state the proposed guideline.  Please consider the difference between arguing a point and stating a "rule". --Kevin Murray 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft I've proposed is neither arguement, nor essay, nor speech.  It is no more, or less, than a clear statement and explanation of "a 'rule'".  You seem to confuse the draft guideline-addition with the material I have written in discussing that proposal -- why it is needed and what form it must have to be effective -- which do "argue a point", of course.  I wish you would address that arguement, in its particulars, rather than making hand-wavy mis-statements, as in your last post. -- Lonewolf BC 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does "notability" apply to the content of articles? 

message: In light of the responses -- not as many as I'd hoped for, but none disagreeing -- I suggest that this point be made clear near the top of the guidelines.  Here is a first draft:Note that these guidelines, and their more specialised subsidiaries at the right, are guidelines for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a Wikipedia article, given an article's rightful existence on Wikipedia.  Although issues of article content are sometimes discussed in terms of "notability", within Wikipedia, that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which are inapplicable to such matters:  "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, in not required in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article.  For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia.I think that about says it. Please suggest any changes you might think are needed. It should go into the guidelines if and when it has general approval.-- Lonewolf BC 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be reference to the concept of notability that can be found, for example, in WP:BLP and WP:RS. These do directly refer to notability and are about a certain aspect of the notability already here; this Wikipedia:Notability page is about "notability" on Wikipedia, and it should certainly not make it appear that notability is completely irrelevant to article content. Other than that, I think the text could probably be shorter, but that's not an objection to adding it. —Centrx→talk • 06:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  I'm not altogether sure what you mean, but if I rightly understand you then you mean that where the term "notability" appears elsewhere in Wikipedia guidelines -- notably (ha-ha) in the expression "relevant to ... notability", and its variants -- it does mean the same as in these guidelines (whereas the "notability" in talk-page discussions about article content generally does not).  I'll recompose the draft, to work that in. -- Lonewolf BC 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Redundant?  I don't think so.  Those other discussions seem to be about quite different issues.  This, here, proposes a new paragraph to put into the guidelines, most likely among the introductory paragraphs.  Those other discussions are about ... some fairly arcane points about the existing introductory paragraphs, as best as I can make out.Perhaps I should move this whole thing to the bottom of the page, where it would be easier to find, but I'm giving ample opportunity for anyone to comment, and using edit-summaries to suit.  I surely hope that anyone concerned won't wait till after I insert this to comment upon it or object to it.-- Lonewolf BC 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I object to your message, but I don't think we need to add more text volume to the guideline.  I'd prefer a broader approach in developing a clean and tight guideline.  I don't think that you have anywhere near a consensus for this being added at this point. --Kevin Murray 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Has there really been any problem with misinterpretation of the notability guideline this way? Certainly, articles on a notable subject might include things which are not in and of themselves notable (for example, "Population of Denver" would not be an appropriate article subject, but it's certainly appropriate for inclusion in the :Denver article.) While content of an article should all be sourced, I've never seen anyone arguing that each individual heading or sentence requires the same standards as we have for whole articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seraph, strange as it may seem, yes there has been a problem with such misrepresentation.  That's why I am bothering with this whole business.  There are those who need it spelled out to them.  I am glad to see you so firmly and unequivocally agree with what I have always considered the only sensible interpretation of these guidelines.  However there are those who have been using calls of "not notable!" to strip information from articles, or try to do so, and appealing to the authority of these guidelines as back-up.  It's quite annoying, and is harmful to Wikipedia.  I'm trying to put a stop to it.Kevin, I am glad that at least you don't object to the central idea.  For the reasons just given there is a need to add this clarifying paragraph (or one like it) to these guidelines.  I guess you've never met a notability-abusing editor -- lucky you.  If you had, I doubt that you'd doubt the need.  This addition will actually tighten the guidelines, which are now open to misrepresentation because they nowhere say these things explicitly.If you think the writing needs betterment, have a go yourself.  I really don't see what you mean by your criticisms of my draft, though.  I tried to make the wording airtight, because based on my experience it shall need to be.  I think I've made the paragraph crystal clear, and just the length it needs to be so as to be that clear.As for consensus, "silence means approval".  However I am actually glad to get some further participation, a prior, from other editors, even though it is mildly critical so far.  I really don't want this to be a one-man effort -- partly because the notability-abusers would jump on that as a pretext to ignore the paragraph, partly because I don't want any messy wrangling to affect the the project page, and partly out of pure collegiality. -- Lonewolf BC 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do they speak english where you live? --Kevin Murray 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even where, they live, so it seems.  Look, most people can read this stuff between the lines.  The target, here, is people who can't (or won't) do that, and are wedded to an odd interpretation.  Thus the need to be explicit and detailed. -- Lonewolf BC 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I don't dispute that an explanation of the topic is warranted but not as part of the guideline.  Please read WP:CREEP.  Less can be more since people are more likely to read it. --Kevin Murray 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Consider putting the bare essentials in the guideline with an explanation in a footnote and detailed discussion in a linked essay. --Kevin Murray 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that there is value in brevity, the paragraph is not an instruction, but an explanation of something important.  "Creep" thus does not really apply -- to the paragraph itself, that is.  Nor does it tell me anything I didn't know.  It does, however, contain a useful quote from Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler [my italics]."  Less than what I've written would be too simple to be effective, for reasons I've already given.  Given that you agree than an explanation of the topic is warranted, the question (as between you and me, at least) then becomes where to put it.  I suppose that this is where you believe "instruction creep" really enters the picture.  I respectfully disagree that the brief paragraph I've proposed is troublesome in that regard.  It is not so long, and every word of it needs saying, to block avenues of possible misinterpretation -- so it really is the "bare essentials", already.Therfore, it ought be put it right in the guidelines, where folk will see it.  If need be, give it a heading, so that people who don't need to read it won't -- that might be a good idea, also, from the viewpoint of making it an easier find for those who do need to read it, and for pointing to it from off-page.  As for making it a linked essay, it is far too short for that, and doing so would greatly weaken its force, as against a plain appearance in the guidelines.  Making it a footnote likewise would weaken it, through textual obscurity and by implicitly lessening its importance.  So I think a straightforward place in the guidelines, perhaps under a heading or sub-heading, is the way to go.-- Lonewolf BC 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LW, I don't so much object to what you have to say as the way you say it.  You make arguments, write essays, and draft wonderful speeches, but you don't succinctly state the proposed guideline.  Please consider the difference between arguing a point and stating a "rule". --Kevin Murray 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft I've proposed is neither arguement, nor essay, nor speech.  It is no more, or less, than a clear statement and explanation of "a 'rule'".  You seem to confuse the draft guideline-addition with the material I have written in discussing that proposal -- why it is needed and what form it must have to be effective -- which do "argue a point", of course.  I wish you would address that arguement, in its particulars, rather than making hand-wavy mis-statements, as in your last post. -- Lonewolf BC 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed add to guidelines: "N/A to article-contents" 

message: My case in hand is about a Japanese novel which has yet been translated into English and hence has little results in a English search engine test; but it does came up with 660 hits when the name in Japanese (in kanji and kana) is used as search term.
The first is about the novel itself, and the second is about the writer's plagiarism claim against an anime/manga series that is definitively notable (having been published all over the world); the claim has about 1000 search hits, but all of them in Japanese.
So, should these be considered notable as the English Wikipedia is concerned? --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six hundred sixty is very slight for a novel, and remembering that one aspect of verifiability revolves around the ability for a typical editor or reader to verify the claims made.  I would suggest perhaps you work on improving the Japanese version of the page until such time as this person/event becomes more notable. Wjhonson 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, I am the one to propose an AfD due to notability issues. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as the hits come from reliable sources (newspapers etc), yes.  Translation of the sources is another issue but there are a fair amount of Japanese speakers on WP.  ColourBurst 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Samuel I would support your analysis that the novel is *not yet notable* in English.  I believe we don't generally consider notability in some other language to extend to notability in English. Wjhonson 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the last point. If it had to be possible for the typical editor or reader to verify claims, then many technical scientific articles could never be written. For example, look at Kullback–Leibler divergence and tell me someone without a mathematical specialty could verify whether the references agree or disagree with the fine points of what the article says. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English says English language sources are preferred, but not required, and, I believe, similar reasoning should extend to notability. That said, I can't guarantee notability based solely on number of Google hits. It makes a difference whether they are hits from fan sites, or from front page articles in the Asahi Shimbun. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the notability criteria are language specific, and we must do what we can to avoid systemic bias. Being an English language encyclopedia only means that our entries are written in the English language. That does not mean that we only cover topics if they are notable in the English language. Nor are we suppose to exclude topics that are notable in other languages but not in English. --Farix (Talk) 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...what if the subject is notable in another language but not in English? 

message: I changed the order of the sentences in the first paragraph so that the reason for the guideline is stated before jumping into definitions. --Kevin Murray 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reordering First Paragraphs

message: "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic"
Please enter an alternative here. Please put your discussion below the list.
*:(1)This guideline ensures that the available source material justifies an encyclopedic article about the topic. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yawn --Kevin Murray 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The following is a bogus sentence

message: * Since our notability guidelines do not set criteria for any amount of material, how can the requirement say "enough"?  These guidelines estabish criteria for being notable, not the volume of sources. --Kevin Murray 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yawn --Kevin Murray 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Please see here for my argument that such a policy is needed (particulary for painters).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Notabilty (artists)]]

message: Can we remove the section on notability not being subjective.  Arguments rage over what constitutes a reliable publiched source, and if that can't be defined objectively, it makes the statement: "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." a statement based on a subjective clause, and therefore neuters the point being made. Hiding Talk 11:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point in context is clear -- WP:RS over WP:ILIKEIT. -- Dragonfiend 11:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. "Has this been covered in editorially-controlled and fact-checked or scholarly peer-reviewed publications?" is a pretty objective question. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually fairly "subjective," not to mention creates a systematic bias against recent and non-paper-based productions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the self-selection biases in the editing population, and the easy of finding info on recent events in firstworldistan rather than long past ones in thirdworldland, I'd think that "systematic bias" should read as "necessary, but still wholly inadequate, corrective to other biases". Mileage may vary. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh?  Could I have that in layman's terms? Hiding Talk 19:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Angus, do they also speak english where you live? --Kevin Murray 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll attempt to translate: it's a lot easier for people in English-speaking countries to find and interpret English sources, so why would there be a systemic bias against niche web communities (where there are plenty of editors) versus articles notable in non-English languages?  If anything the bias is towards niche web communities, because there are plenty of editors affiliated with them.  ColourBurst 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, actually, they don't, and whether they spoke it where I grew up is the subject of a long-running Wikipedia content dispute. But ColourBurst has it right. In future, I'll stick to the USA and a randomly selected African or South-East Asian country if I'm making that comparison. The point remains: we haven't done any more than scratch the surface in many subjects, and yet most of our time is occupied arguing about borderline, and directory-entry style, Anglosphere material originating in the past decade or so. You'll excuse me if I find the increasingly desperate attempts to justify including material which is clearly in the WP:NOT category (not a directory, not a publisher of original thought, not MySpace...) completely pointless. Based on my preliminary survey, 90% of the people covered in two recent Belgian biographical dictionaries aren't on Wikipedia. The proportion for African and Asian countries will be nearer 100%. There are millions of things to write about which no reasonable editor is going to send to AfD which haven't been started, and hundreds of thousands which exist in easily expandable stub form. There's no need to agonise over the borderline material when there's so much else to do. The only reason this page exists is to ensure that the NOT material is deleted. If it sweeps up a articles which may belong here, that's unfortunate, but no big deal. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The assessment of "multiple" and "non-trivial" is inherently subjective.  I thought that the page was right before Centrx's revision of my edits. TheronJ 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is subjective 

message: Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Rethinking_the_first_sentence above, it seems there is significant disagreement regarding what the wording actually should be in the first sentence.  The dispute moves further when we start bringing in specific topics and articles, so in the interests of moving things along instead of keeping multiple guidelines in flux, it appears a few are favored over others:
# Keeping it the same. 
#* I note this because some don't seem to see the problem, and this is the initial consensus version for this page.  I would like to think that the strength of arguments and pushback on implementation describes practice and consensus differently, but we're discussing it.
# In general, a topic is notable if it has been prominently discussed in multiple non-trivial published works that meet Wikipedia's reliable source guideline and are independent of the subject itself.
#* Presented to allow for caveats.  Probably the most open standard, and probably the most open to the type of "wikilawyering" so many people are afraid of.  
# A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article.
#* My preference, and one that more than a couple people liked, but there are issues and some serious pushback from a couple people at this point, as well.  I'd like to think it encourages discussion as to whether the sources are enough to go beyond a directory-style entry rather than bickering over whether a source is trivial or not, but some may disagree.
#A topic may be notable only if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.
#*This had some agreement toward the end, but I personally feel that it's too similar to 2 in terms of the issues it presents.
So what direction should we go with this?  Any further thoughts after sifting through the discussions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for 3. "Multiple" is fundamentally misleading; "sufficient" is closer to what is needed. A subject is notable if you can find sufficient reliable material to write an article which is NPOV, and isn't any of the NOTs. One point that needs emphasising is that when the subject is a text, it is not a sufficient source in itself. The presumption has to be that any article on a text based solely on that text is OR. That apart, the number of sources will depend on their subject and quality. As the sources become less focussed on the subject of the article, or more trivial, or less reliable, the number needed will increase. At some point, which will vary from case to case, there will no longer be sufficient material to produce an article which meets the basic inclusion criteria of ENC, NPOV, NOT, and ATT/V. (But some sorts of NOT-a-directory articles would clearly be included on the basis of ENC; gazetteer-type directory entries are generally found in a large encyclopedia.) The problem comes when people write articles based on OR and memory, then try to backfit references at AfD. That's never very convincing as the references are treated as karma points, some number of which of which will save the article from deletion. No matter what this or the related guidelines may say, I would much rather see articles written on the basis of a single good source than one with a dozen weak ones added as afterthoughts. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed someone added it in, which I somewhat support, but hope people will discuss further if there's problems.  This should replace the "primary" criterion as well, as it's a better description of what constitutes "notability," but I, again, won't change it without consensus.  If it's uncontroversial where it was added, I'm hoping it's uncontroversial here, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with Jeff that we will need to make the primary consistent with this sentence, and when we reach consensus on that, we should adjust the text in subordinate pages.  All in good time though.  --Kevin Murray 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Reviewing the discussion above and here the consensus seems to be for the salient terms of BDJ's option #3.  However, it could be a shorter sentence in the context of the surrounding sentences, where the example above needed to stand on its own.  --Kevin Murray 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm still for 3, but still if and only if we somehow answer the obvious question "Sufficient for what?" Sufficient to prove the subject exists? Sufficient to one day write a GA or FA (my preference?) Somewhere in between? "Sufficient", by itself, is a meaningless word. Consider the following couple sentences: "Do we have sufficient sugar?" "Is half a tank sufficient gas?" If you didn't already know what the person was asking about, those are nonsense. "Do we have sufficient sugar to make 3 dozen cookies?" "Is half a tank sufficient gas to get to Las Vegas?" These are meaningful, and so should the statement we put in. If we can define sufficient, I like Jeff's version much better. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sufficient to write a decent article. And by "decent" I mean "Abides by guidelines such as WP:WAF which prescribe a real-world focus, or otherwise does not fall under the various things we are WP:NOT, particularly indiscriminate". Nifboy 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sufficient to write a non-stub, policy compliant (WP:NOR+WP:V/WP:ATT; WP:NPOV; WP:NOT; WP:WAF (guideline, but mostly a long form of WP:NOT#IINFO #7); WP:BLP) reasonably-comprehensive article on the topic.  I don't use FA because only the best articles should be FA, so to say all should be would be ridiciulous.  I hope the GA standards aren't significantly different than that plus some reasonable quality of writing, but I don't know or care about them so I can't reference them.  Also, GA and FA standards have changed over time, generally upwards, and we won't want this definition to automatically change meaning when they change next.  GRBerry 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think GBerry nails it.  I think that if (when?  I think we're coming close to a consensus, but it was the weekend) we do the substitution, that wording would become the footnote for "sufficient."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting the discussion above