Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)/Archive 1

message: Several recent AFDs, notably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce where the need for this guideline was explicitly discussed, led me to create this proposal. Is there a consensus that a news item such as the a human interest story, or the disappearance of a child, or a cute animal stuck in a tree, or a violent crime, or an accidental death can gain multiple coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and be newsworthy enough to lead the evening news, but not require or deserve a Wikipedia article? In otherwords, is newsworthyness inherently encyclopedic, or should the subject have to be part of the enduring historic record to be encyclopedic? If a guideline is drafted, polished, and reaches consensus here and by being referred to in deletion debates, it might avoid the need to decide this question of news versus encyclopedic content in many future deletion debates. In the first draft on the project page, I have included several ideas expressed in the deletion debate mentioned above, and I thank their original creators, who bear no responsibility for the net result. Thanks. I referred to this by the shortcutWP:NEWSITEM since WP:NEWS was already taken, but other shortcuts are welcome, and perhaps someone can set it up as a functioning shortcut. Edison 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, thank you for creating this; it does seem important that we at least try and nail down a policy for this. (I mean, we have notability criteria for Porn Actors, but not news events?) This is a good start, but seems to be coming from a heavily exclusionary POV (It would be nice to know what is notable, not just what isn't). And per point #2, I would really think it's worth mentioning that many news items, although not deserving articles of their own, may be eligible for inclusion in an existing article or list. I'll give this some more thought and check back later, hope this generates some good discussion. A quick thought off the top of my head - Perhaps a requirement could address the range of distribution of a news item - such as state-wide or country-wide? I'm pretty sure that would quickly eliminate a number of cat-in-tree or prostitute-arrested type subjects. Although WP:N purposefully does not set a specific number of independent sources required, could it be something that could be addressed here? -- Antepenultimate 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wholeheartedly support this endeavour.  Hopefully Zunaid can pop by and post the good reasoning shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce.  As for using AfD as it is as an indicator of consensus, I think that's a flawed position as the consensus developed around the existing guidelines and those are terrible in relation to news items and bias wikipedia in favour of passing news fads.  Hopefully this guideline will help to fill the gap. MLA 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Further, if you look at the AFD, consensus is overwhelmingly against Edison's position and in favor of broad inclusion for events.  Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive of the general feelings of the community that already exist.  As that AFD shows, most people feel this kind of bar isn't necessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would imagine that WP:BIO would supercede anything here (especially in these earliest stages). This would seem to be focusing more on events (right?), rather than individuals. Obviously a lot needs to be done before this can even be considered a true policy (it's less than a hour old, give it a chance). Also, I'm one of those who belives the AfD should result in "keep", but I believe Zunaid made some excellent points about the possible need for this type of guideline. It's true that the guidelines as they stand now can be interpreted to allow some items that are truely unencyclopedic, and it could be useful to have something other than a long-winded WP:IAR to back that position up. A lot of discussion would have to take place, obviously, before that could happen. And if no consensus is reached, what's the harm in trying? -- Antepenultimate 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it a standing rule in the sense that it is part of a standing policy, or is this another one of those de facto rules that we just have to take a person's word for? Part of Zunaid's argument is that there are de facto approaches to this, if that is true then I see no harm trying to make it a real policy. You might notice that every example you gave would have passed my "beyond local coverage" proposal above. The events I mentioned were in response to examples already given on the project page. Example: Let's say a high school football team wins the regional championship, and a local newspaper and two papers from a nearby city cover the story. Now this team obviously does not deserve an article, but rigid interpretation of existing guidleines say: Yes they do (technically). Here we can attempt to spell out why such an event or organization wouldn't be eligible for an article, despite being non-trivially covered in multiple, independent sources. -- Antepenultimate 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to confess I once successfully argued for keeping an article about a cute little panda who escaped from the zoo and got stuck in a tree. It had enough news coverage, but in the long run is it encyclopedic? Then there are the perennial missing pretty girls, and dead business executives.   Not to make a WP:POINT and while seeking to avoid WP:BEANS, one could take the past week's news and find a dozen things, events, human interest stories, or tragic deaths which were a primary subject of multiple independent and reliable coverage. Most reasonable persons would agree that most of these are not encyclopedic. If the proposal is too deletionist, then please discuss modifications. Most of it came from the deletion debate mentioned above. A big question is: Can something be quite newsworthy without being encyclopedic? For instance, in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park is mentioned the current news story of Jim Hamm, who was attacked by a mountain lion and who was successfully defended by his wife. It is an alarming story, it could happen to anyone who went hiking in the mountains, it mentions an animal, and has human interest and heroism, but it is properly mentioned in the article about the park. But if one wanted to have a Wikipedia article about Mr. and Mrs. Hamm, there are 17,600 Google hits for Jim Hamm lion and independent stories (not just reprints of an AP story) were run in countless newspapers and broadcast news workdwide. With the victim clinging to life, and receiving advanced medical treatment, more coverage is occurring daily, so it is not just a one day news entry.  Heroic, tragic, but is it encyclopedic enough for a standalone encyclopedia article? Edison 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the story may not be "encyclopedic", the zoo the panda escaped from, or the persons involved in the events, or some other aspect, may be, and furthermore, We Don't Care.  An article on Jim and Neil Hamm, for example, would pass WP:BIO as "elderly couple who fought of a mountain lion and became nationally famous for it."  I wouldn't object to the article, because they have plenty of coverage and it passes all of our policies to have an article on them.  And yes, you can go through the paper and find a dozen things that pass.  I say Create Them!, I'd love to have thousands of well-sourced articles on interesting stories, even if they're not historically important or the most significant things of all time.  We need to worry about articles that don't meet our basic policies, instead of ones that do but some people feel shouldn't be here anyway. Notability isn't subjective for a reason; if we're going to be the sum of human knowledge, why exclude legitimate stories? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say that the story about Jim and Neil Hamm would probably be better suted as a section in the existing  State Park article. I would have to imagine that the fame will be fleeting. -- Antepenultimate 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked it up, and Mountain Lion attacks about as rare as shark attacks, and we have List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States by decade.  When you've got that few, I think each one has some notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right, but it's also true that when you have so few, a single article could encompass them all. Separate articles are not needed. -- Antepenultimate 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Generated from AFDs

message: The first draft raises some good points, but I believe it is coming too much from an exclusionary point of view. I'm going to attempt to write another draft here that is perhaps more nuetral in tone and comes from the perspective of what is notable (in the manner of most guidelines I've seen). Please excuse the syntax; I'm not normally in the business of policy making.
The cornerstone of Wikipedia's notability guidelines is that a subject is considered notable if it is the subject of multiple third party sources, independent of the subject and each other. However, the nature of modern newspaper publishing makes it possible for subjects and events to fulfill this requirement without being of truely encyclopedic value. These guidelines aim to distinguish what types of events should be included in Wikipedia.
* If coverage of an event extends beyond local news organizations to such publications as a nationally or internationally distributed magazine or television news program, such an event is likely eligible for inclusion. Other specific criteria, such as WP:BIO, may still be applied, however.
* Many individual events may often be better covered by inclusion in an existing article. The demolition of a particular, long-standing building, for example, may be better suited for inclusion in the article addressing its home community.
* Subjects and events covered by multiple news sources that are eligible for inclusion at Wikipedia should show sustained, non-trivial coverage, and/or coverage should extend outside of the event or subject's immediate area. This is applicable especially to crime coverage concerning such instances as murder or robbery.
Ugh, I know that sounds terrible. But those are my ideas. Any thoughts? -- Antepenultimate 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't this all just be covered by a formalization that "coverage of a single day's events counts as single coverage for purposes of coverage in multiple nontrivial sources"? That way a single event on its own is clearly not an article topic in itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and WP:N could probably be summed up in it's first few lines as well. But most people like things spelled out for them. You may be right, however, and perhaps including a line such as that in an established guideline may be the way to go. but I would like to see how this plays out. -- Antepenultimate 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A particular nonencyclopedic but widely covered event may have coverage over many days as news editors try to squeeze every bit of interest out of the story, or as a wounded person/animal lingers on and doctors work around the clock, or as the bad guy is hunted by law enforcement and a year later brought to trial. Edison 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I tend to err on the side of inclusion. I think a refined version of the above would go a long way toward solving many of the problems mentioned at the above AfD that dragged me into this whole affair, without being overly prohibitive. -- Antepenultimate 00:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the Molly story having a brief, factual article. It recieved international, sustained attention - it's the kind of thing that a person might remember (as you did, and I do, too) and be curious about. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if a decent article existed here to inform such a person. Also, it's encyclopedic (to me, anyway) in that it is an example of the type of thing that grabs and holds people's attention, although nobody could have predicted that response. There are people who have made careers studying such things (for the purposes of sociology and, by extention, marketing). -- Antepenultimate 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The reasoning behind prohibiting articles is the availability of information, not importance or encyclopedicity of a topic.  The main notability guideline explicitly disclaims importance of a subject as being relevant to inclusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which to some editors (myself included) is a flaw in the guidelines when it is applied specifically to news stories. Because news coverage is so widespread, and because stories are likely to be carried for a weeks, there are many articles that could under the current guidelines be created. For this guideline to work as proposed it has to exclusionary, of necessity. There is simply no other way around it. Zunaid©® 09:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  What is wrong with well-sourced, neutral articles free of original research? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A second draft, from a different perspective 

message: === Afd debates ===
Use this section to list all news-related AfD debates, as an indicator of the type of articles being nominated, and the type of arguments being made, in relation to news items. If the debates are closed, please indicate the outcome as well.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy (nominated 19 September 2006) speedy keep as it was on the main page at the time
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Ahmed Dockrat No consensus
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce Keep
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey NN college football player, received some coverage due to death. Closed as no consensus
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim Keep. Included a link to a memorial site asking for money to be sent to the family. 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Hornbeck No consensus 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalee Holloway Keep 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy speedy keep the first time as it was on the main page. Delete the second time as it was felt the main article covered the news sufficiently.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrietta the four-legged chicken Merge. received 2 news stories on 1 day.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier No consensus. (WP:NOTNEWS cited as basis for deleting.)
:Note:The above 2007 Plot article probably will marginally meet the current version of WP:NOTNEWS, though, using the slightly expanded criteria of multiple independent articles in multiple weeks.  Therefore if the debate were reintroduced in a couple of months it's possible that WP:NOTNEWS would not be used for a delete recommendation. Dugwiki 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful links 

message: Use this section to list all news-related AfD debates, as an indicator of the type of articles being nominated, and the type of arguments being made, in relation to news items. If the debates are closed, please indicate the outcome as well.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy (nominated 19 September 2006) speedy keep as it was on the main page at the time
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Ahmed Dockrat No consensus
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce Keep
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey NN college football player, received some coverage due to death. Closed as no consensus
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kim Keep. Included a link to a memorial site asking for money to be sent to the family. 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Hornbeck No consensus 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalee Holloway Keep 
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy speedy keep the first time as it was on the main page. Delete the second time as it was felt the main article covered the news sufficiently.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrietta the four-legged chicken Merge. received 2 news stories on 1 day.
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier No consensus. (WP:NOTNEWS cited as basis for deleting.)
:Note:The above 2007 Plot article probably will marginally meet the current version of WP:NOTNEWS, though, using the slightly expanded criteria of multiple independent articles in multiple weeks.  Therefore if the debate were reintroduced in a couple of months it's possible that WP:NOTNEWS would not be used for a delete recommendation. Dugwiki 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd debates 

message: In a few sentences, describe what you want this guideline to achieve, and how you foresee this being achieved. (For the sake of moving forward try not comment back and forth on each other's reasoning too much.)
* This guideline should provide a framework for establishing the encyclopedic value of newsworthy topics, and provide clear guidance as to what turns a newsworthy topic into encyclopedic material. Since news topics are almost always covered by "multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources" they always and trivially satisfy the core principle of notability, and we ("I") do not want every news topic in the world to have an article on the 'pedia. This guideline is thus forced to be exclusionary in order to work, and must be regarded as an extension of WP:NOT, as only policies may "trump" guidelines. Zunaid©®
*WP:NOT paper, it is true, but WP:NOT the newspaper either. Those who wish to write current events articles can do so! Just generally not here. The place for that is two blocks down and hang a right at Wikinews. Ask some questions before you hit the "create this article" button. Will it be of interest in ten years? Presidential election? Almost a certain yes. A highly publicized but local-interest crime? Almost a certain no, but Wikinews is perfect for that! Wikinews exists for a reason. That reason is that news reporting is outside our scope. Not unsourced, not a technical violation of policy, but quite simply, not compatible with the goal of a general-purpose encyclopedia, period. Seraphimblade 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline philosophy in your own words 

message: Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy was created and updated practically as soon as the news happened, same with 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.  We know now that the events mattered, and have thorough articles with dozens of references for each, but their full importance wasn't immediately clear.  But, if they had turned out not to be important, should we delete them?  The Islam controversy would probably barely merit a mention in an ordinary biography of the pope, and doesn't seem to have had lasting effects, but it was a big hubbub and we've got plenty of information on it.  Why not include that information, even if you don't think it's an important story? It's not hurting anyone, or even dragging us down, because it meets our policies and offers quality information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline goes to the very heart of what Wikipedia is and isn't. A general purpose encyclopedia should not be covering each and every news story that meets the notability criteria, because encyclopedias are not newspapers and more loosely, "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of everything". What you're suggesting is a Wiki news archive, which is exactly where these things belong if they "turned out not to be important". The only things that should be in an encyclopedia are things that "turned out to BE important" i.e. those that have had an historical impact. One way to measure this is by the amount of secondary analysis and material (documentaries, books, movies, etc) that a particular story generates. Another is to note if the incident set any type of precedent (legal, commercial, etc.) or caused wide-scale societal changes (legislation, behaviour, etc.). Remember, notability is not subjective so it is important that a proper framework is used to "measure" news articles by. Within each of these measurements we can of course set the notability threshold quite low. This would filter out most "newsworthy" stories while allowing those that have had a proven impact. Zunaid©® 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:HARMLESS is not, not, not an inclusion criterion. I really need to write that essay. Seraphimblade 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with news?

message: Removed the following addition, please discuss:
:"The news item involves an already notable subject, and needs to be spun off into its own article due to length considerations."
For my part, I don't believe we should ever put the idea in that if something non-notable "needs" to be spun off due to excessive coverage length, it's automatic justification for an article. If there's enough secondary source material to support such a length, the subject is notable anyway and it's a nonissue. If the subject has very little source coverage but has a huge entry here, we need to think in terms of "What can be cut?", not "How can we pull off this having its own article?" Seraphimblade 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition removed

message: Another criterion for inclusion: "The news item has caused multiple comments by major political figures.". While this is far from perfect, I think that something like it is necessary as at the moment this guideline might technically have excluded 9/11 until laws got passed caused by that event. This should have the effect of including stuff that could be included, while - and I think this is the answer to several of the criticisms above - excluding that which we will never be able to write a featured article about. Moreschi  Deletion! 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that fall under the exemption that the event will unquestionably be a historic and world-changing one? Many things get comments from political figures (though, in some cases, those figures might be usable as sources themselves.) Seraphimblade 19:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily: I can think of several that fall short of that exception - which I can't see? - but are of sufficient encyclopedic merit for us to include. Moreschi  Deletion! 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've added 

message: My concern is that we will have too many articles which are definitely news at the time they happen, as evidenced by the decision of newspaper editors and TV news show producers to present them. But they may be so commonplace that we would have articles about things which are a frequent sad part of daily life.  To go to a recent tragic "missing white girls" story, please tell me if there should be Wikipedia articles for Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites. The two girls, 16 and 18 went missing along with a car belonging to one around Jan 22, 2007 from Gaithersburg Maryland. On Jan 22, TV station NBC4 (Maryland?) ran a story "Police get leads from public. The Washington Post ran an independent story "Police reach out to 2 missing teenagers " on page PB2. On Jan 23, CBS TV channel 5 in Montgomery County Maryland ran a story derived in part from an Associated Press story, "Diary may hold clue." WJZ, CBS-TV Baltimore Maryland ran "Diary may hold clues." CBS TV station KCAL in Los Angeles, California ran a story originating from the Maryland TV station, giving the story coverage on at least both coasts. The Frederick News, Frederick Maryland ran an original story "Police search for missing teens." ABC-TV WJLA ran a story based on the Washington Post story. The Gazette-Net Maryland (print or net, not sure) ran an original story "Search for missing teens."
On Jan 24, the Examiner.com Montgomery County Maryland ran an original story "Scope of search increases." The Maryland Gazette ran "Nationwide search launched for missing teens.
On Jan 25, NBC4.com ran an original story "Center for Missing and Exploited Children searches for teens.”
On January 26, Cox.net a cable TV news channel, ran "Two missing Montgomery County girls gone a week."
On Jan. 27, The Washington Post ran "Family member plead for a phone call. America's Most Wanted, a network TV program which had earlier run a brief story on the two, ran a feature story.
There was a gap, then on Feb. 2, Fox TV News ran "On the Record, a network program with Greta van Susteren, in which the story was covered extensively and the father of one was interviewed. The Herald Mail online of Hagerstown Maryland ran an original story "Missing girls might be in area." NBC-TV channel 25 of Hagerstown ran an original story "Police find car with two bodies," with no signs of foul play. Snopes.com, a respected website which is carried in numerous newspapers, ran "Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites" telling the sad story.
On Feb 3, the Washington Post ran "Missing MD teen car found with two bodies" on page A1, indicating it is a major news story. The Associated Press sent out "Teens most likely dead from fumes." no suicide note, no pills, ignition on. But one girl had expressed a desire in her diary that they be buried together, .
So this story had numerous original stories, not just reprints, the stories were written over numerous days, carried in papers in Maryland and adjoining states, and carried on 2 network TV programs, and carried in TV stations around the country This Shakespeare-quality tragedy seems to fully satisfy WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V, just like thousands of other stories every year just in the U.S. . Are there other guidelines which could be used correctly to justify its deletion in AFD, or would it be deleted on grounds “It just isn’t important enough a story?"  Compare to Jennifer Wilbanks, who chose to run away and turned up safe. But Examiner.com, Washington D.C ran a story Jan 24 which said Montgomery County police (one county out of thousands in the U.S.) had 1650 cases of runaways in 2006, and 811 remain open. Should we have 811 Wikipedia articles per county? Or only ones where two pretty teenage girls run way together in a Missing white woman syndrome, or only when they are found dead? Or is it a sad case for Wikinews? After doing the research and finding sources, I feel that I or anyone could write up a well-sourced article on each girl or on the disappearance of both which technically satisfies WP:N, {WP:V]] and WP:RS, and see if it survives AFD. If there were a WP:NEWSITEM such as this proposal, it might be used to delete such an article. It is a heart-rending story for parents or friends of teenagers. But I'm not sure that this story or literally thousands a year similar news stories belong in an encyclopedia. I do not see new laws or any other change in society coming out of it. Can you find a reason for there not to be an article about this, or do you think there shoud be such an article? How many such cases of disappearances, crime victims, or even cute animal human interest stories get enough press coverage in enough independent sources over a long enough period to satisfy the filters now existing and not get stories? Or is all news encyclopedic (not just Wikinewsworthy?) I really see the need for an additional filter to say, yes, it was widely covered for a couple of days or weeks, but it is not encyclopedic. A fat cat stuck in a doggy door may make national news on the day he is rescued, and then again when the owner installs a giant doggy door, because editors love to keep going back to an appealing story. Cute boy falls in well, the nation waits to see if he gets out, he is rescued, then he gets a cute dog, then the President has him visit the White house. Encyclopedia or news archive? Edison 05:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possible index case: Michael Auberry, a 12 year old Boy Scout, wandered into the woods and got lost on a camping trip. Three days later he was found alive. In the first 3 days, he has 860 Google hits,  representing multiple independent substantial coverage by various news services as well as newspapers and TV stations. The major news services such as CNN stationed correspondents at the search site to give extensive live reports. Would this incident in any way make an acceptable encyclopedia article? If it had happened 100 years ago, would the news coverage of that era make it a suitable entry for Wikipedia (simce notability is permanent?) Or is it a great item for Wikinews? The article James Kim dying of exposure after getting lost in the mountains survived an AfD. We should make sure there is guideline in WP:N or its possible successor WP:AI which could be cited in a deletion debate for such an article. At present there is one in WP:AI, number 3, which could exclude an event with several stories on the same day, but this event already extends over 3 days and has far more than the 2 or 3 articles referred to in that guideline, and will likely have retrospective followup articles. I see nothing in WP:N which would allow deleting an article about this 12 year old and his 2 days in the woods. Edison 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your desire for a section in WP:N or WP:AI to cover this is equivalent to a post-hoc justification of a prior subjective desire to see certain types of articles excluded.  However, if this is established as a general guideline (rather than being discussing at on AFD on a case-by-case basis), it will be a blanket statement that applies to all articles.  But look at the amount of coverage that James Kim received!  Why should a person that received so much coverage over a period of more than 1.5 months be excluded?  And if he is excluded, what justification is there for keeping any other article?  I do not feel a general guideline can be appropriate for such subject-specific subjective preferences.  -- Black Falcon 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Auberry a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article or not? And if I am discussing an article which has not yet appeared in Wikipedia wouldn't that make it "a priori" entirely? And a priori for the next such sensational news stories which get huge coverage on CNN and FOX and in the newspapers, but which I do not see as encyclopedic? Edison 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent sad example of news meeting [[WP:N]] but not being encyclopedic

message: I truly think that "news events" is such a heterogenous set of subjects that trying to say anything general here is difficult. The problem is with the general notability criterion "multiple non-trivial published sources" which is an approximation at best. In general, things are not notable because an independent source covers them. Media covers them because the things are notable. There is without doubt some correlation between notability and independent coverage, but the slavish application of that standard is detrimental to the project.
I think we are better off trying to discuss news events on a case-by-case basis, if you think an event is unencyclopedic bring it to AFD and give the article a fair hearing. We will usually be able to build up a feel for what we generally consider encyclopedic. We have pretty much determined that commercial air disasters are notable. We have determined that most car crashes are not.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should say that "multiple non-trivial published sources" is a good indication that something is notable, rather than a definition. As you rightly point out, it doesn't always follow. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case by case basis 

message: I've started a related discussion at WP:NOT combining this new guideline with a related change to the list of examples at WP:NOT#IINFO. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be easier to get consensus on the principle first and then move onto the detail? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it would, because changes to policies requires stronger consensus than creating a guideline.  The burden of proof needed to change policy is higher than it is to craft a simple guideline.  A guideline is a set of recommendations that most editors agree with, but policy is a stronger assertion that editors almost always should abide by policy due to strong consensus on how to handle policy issues.  I think at this point how to handle news articles doesn't have much agreement yet, even in principle, so it's much more likely the first step you can achieve is to get the weaker level of consensus needed to make a guideline recommendation. Dugwiki 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion 

message: I like this proposal and actually like it exactly as written.  Wikipedia is not WikiNews.  Our project is not structured to handle the thousands of transient news stories that occur every day.  WikiNews, on the other hand, is structured to handle those kinds of topics.  This proposal will help explain to new users (and some old users) how to find the boundaries between the two projects.  Rossami (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much like GRBerry's suggestion, and have put it in. Please hack at it or revert if you disagree or think it should be done better. Seraphimblade 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong support 

message: Is this guideline intended to outline the conditions under which coverage by news media would establish notability of a person? If not, is there such a guideline? Sancho McCann 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the main guideline covering how to determine notability for biographies.  This NOTNEWS proposal is more for handling articles about events which receive some verifiable news coverage. Dugwiki 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishing notablity of persons 

message: Why are politicians singled out in this requirement:
 "# The news item has caused multiple comments by major political figures and/or significant political debate." ?
That would tend to make every political scandal worthy of its own article, while the same scandal, with the same amount of news coverage would not be worthy if it affected a university dean, a corporate executive, or a sports figure. Should we automatically assume that politics is more important than art or science or whatever other field? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't like it, . Cheers, Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did :) Sancho McCann 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that looks better. Cheers, Moreschi  Request a recording? 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are politicians more important? 

message: This is a very young policy (less than two weeks), do not disrupt articles to try and get this noticed. There are only a handful of editors here and NO Consensus. Hypnosadist 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus does not require unanimity, and the amount of participation by both "inclusionists' and "deletionists" in this proposed guideline compares favorable with that on other adopted proposed guidelines. A proposed guideline becomes an adopted guideline by people referring to it in deletion debates or in article revisions, by consensus on the discussion page that it is ready, and by someone slapping a template on it that it is a guideline. i.e., that labelling it a guideline justs reflects the reality.  There is absolutely no legalistic procudure such as a vote to decide if it is an official guideline, nor is there a Wikipedia High Tribunal For Deciding What Is An Official Guideline. Edison 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah so it is as i thought, the article i created has been targetted to push an unproven, unaccecpted policy thus wasting my time.Hypnosadist 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be fair, it's ok to refer to this proposal and its talk page as reference to a discussion on related issues.  Clearly we have a lot of debate back and forth on the talk page that will probably mirror the issues on your particular article (I'm guessing it's the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier ).  So while nobody should be calling WP:NOTNEWS a "guideline", it's ok to say "this article falls under what is being discussed at the WP:NOTNEWS proposal talk page. Check there for related discussion."  Dugwiki 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, or why wouldn't it even be acceptable to say "This case is exactly the type of reason I support the proposal at WP:NOTNEWS, and the reasoning there applies to this?" Certainly that's easier on the server then copy/pasting the entire essay into the AfD debate, and basically, all that's saying is "What he said." Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I should mention that today I added an extra criteria for notability to try and handle articles which have news articles as their sole sources.  The new criteria expands the proposal to cover events which had multiple news articles in multiple weeks, but still weeds out articles which had basically "one-shot" coverage.  Hopefully that will broaden the inclusion somewhat and make this proposal more likely to gain consensus.  Personally I wouldn't "apply" this to an afd, but I would include a reference to this talk page to further the discussion. Dugwiki 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a great idea Dugwiki.  Your approach has my support. Wjhonson 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One small caveat.  At the present day, Wikinews just does not have the cache that wikipedia has.  It doesn't have critical mass.  Once Wikinews becomes as cited, as known, as updated as wikipedia, then perhaps this guideline could be made stronger, that is, more exclusionary.  But even I, still come *here* to Wikipedia for my *news*. Wjhonson 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't try to force unfinished policies on articles to prove a point

message: I think there are two things that are missing from the current proposed guideline.
First, I think it should say more about merging articles about events with articles about subjects. For instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy was essentially merged into David Beckham (except all the material was already there). I suggest that events should normally be first included in articles about the subject or theme of the event, and then spun off if the article gets too big.
Which comes onto my second point which is we need to at least acknowledge the relationship between this guideline and the Summary Style. Often you will get news stories which could be seen as specific examples of overall events - for instance the Al-Askari Mosque bombing is part of the Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present. Because of the Manual of Style you should expect to get articles that are on a subject more minor than you would ever get with a normal encyclopedia.
I thought of wording along the lines of:
______
Under the Manual of Style, it is recommended that article length is not excessive so that they remain readable. The Summary Style recommends that long articles are split up by spinning off separate sections into their own subarticles. Hence subarticles that are related to a main topic will often cover topics of relatively minor importance.
______
AndrewRT(Talk) 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good God, let's not encourage using "summary style" as an excuse to write about non-notable stuff more then it's already used! If we've got a ton of text on a non-notable person, thing, or event, and people are considering "spinning off", we need to encourage them to cut instead. A lot of the time, such entries are bloated and unencyclopedically detailed (often with unsourced and borderline OR stuff) and really need a good trimming anyway. "Summary style" should never be allowed to be used as a trump-if you've got too much information about a subject that wouldn't even be notable enough for an article, cut it down. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, although irrelevant material should be "cut down", I think merging relevant information is appropriate.  I think the guideline should mention merging as an alternative to Wikinews and deletion.  However, I don't think the Al-Askari Mosque bombing is the best example, as it's generally accepted as the event that set off the Iraqi civil war.  -- Black Falcon 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While there is some overlap between this proposed guideline and the Summary Style subarticles, I don't think they actually conflict. Rather, WP:NOTNEWS is intended to help editors decide between two possibilities: splitting off and expanding coverage of a specific event related to a person, or keeping the coverage of that event to a short couple of sentences in the person's article. Event coverage that becomes exceedingly long doesn't always have to be split into a summary subarticle, but instead can simply be trimmed and kept short without unnecessary detail. What NOTNEWS is basically saying is that it's not worth doing full expanded subarticle coverage on one-shot, otherwise very transitory, events. Dugwiki 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing bits 

message: The first criterion states:
The news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding surveys).  (emphasis added)
Why are surveys excluded?  I could understand excluding surveys on blogs or discussion pages where anyone can post (these would be excluded by WP:RS anyway), but why should we exclude academic surveys or surveys by Gallup, Zogby, etc.?  It seems to me if a news item becomes the subject of an academic or political survey, it's a good sign of its significance.  I haven't removed it yet as I want to know if there a particular rationale behind it.  Thanks,  Black Falcon 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was possibly intended to exclude "non-scientific" surveys, like call-in telephone polls or newspaper surveys with little scientific scrutiny behind them.  I would think, though, that a major academic survey or study is probably reasonable.  I'll go ahead and add the phrase "non-scientific" before the word "survey" to help clarify that. Dugwiki 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that was exactly my thinking when I added the phrase. Simple opinion polls in the immediate aftermath of an event is what I had in mind. I was going to phrase it is as "excluding simple surveys" but decided to circumvent possible wikilawyering over the word "simple". I'd prefer "non-academic" to "non-scientific". A poll can be scientifically conducted (correct statistical population sample etc.), but unless the results are actually analysed and interpreted, it is still merely a poll. Zunaid©® 08:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with surveys?

message: It looks like the current version of WP:NOTNEWS has possibly kind of reached an equilibrium of consensus.  Noone has modified the policy in over a week and the influx of discussion and recommended changes has dropped off as well.  I'm thinking it might be time to try and determine whether to upgrade this to a guideline, assuming you guys don't have major objections.  What's the best process to go about upgrading this article to guideline status? Dugwiki 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, voting is not an accepted way, but  when a cute animal story or some such which gets featured in the news for a day or two gets an article created. Per the discussion above, it should be referred to as a proposed guideline, not a guideline. Consensus does not require unanimity. I support it being labelled as a guideline. Edison 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You say it's "not a valid guideline", but don't actually talk about what it is you disagree with or suggest ways to improve it.  WP:CREEP says that "...new policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful, and that instructions contained in existing pages may have to be pruned at times."  So assuming the proposal is helpful, then there's not necessarily anything wrong with working toward making it a guideline.  Is there something specific you're objecting to in the proposal? Dugwiki 21:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Dugwiki, I agree that more specifics are warranted, and I will work on that.  One of the generic problems with most of the recently proposed guidelines is that these generally restate the same justification in the introductions and then restate WP:N.  In the end the core information distills down to very little added value. I don't mnean to belittle your efforts or intent, but the collective effect of the permutations from WP:N is getting as complicated as the tax code and encouraging wiki lawyering.  A good test is to apply these proposed standards and WP:N to several test cases and see whether the results would vary significantly and frequently enough to support a whole new guideline.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for the follow-up.  To answer some of the questions above, I would say that WP:NOTNEWS is attempting to fill a gap in WP:N regarding transitory news stories that do have multiple published articles, but for which all the articles occur in the same very brief time span and there is no measure of ongoing or follow-up coverage.  For example, you might have a news story which gets press coverage from multiple outlets for one or two or three days in a row, but then it falls off the public radar and gets no coverage from that point on.  WP:N doesn't quite adequately deal with an article about this type of story, because technically the article could cite multiple independent sources who happened to write about the subject in the same very brief time frame.  There appears to be some consensus that such articles probably shouldn't be considered notable, and there should be some minimal measure of media notability that lasts more than a couple days (at least).  Thus WP:NOTNEWS is trying to handle this somewhat grey area that WP:N doesn't seem to quite handle yet. Dugwiki 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The problem then is at WP:NOTE in being too weak in the eyes of the "consensus".  Adding this as a patch is then in direct conflict with WP:NOTE and will create more problems than it will solve. --Kevin Murray 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *An alternative, then, might be to see about adding a condensed version of this to WP:NOTE to tighten it up slightly.  Either method is fine with me, frankly.  My main goal would be to get some general editorial guidance on news-specific articles. Dugwiki 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended next step toward labelling as a Guideline? 

message: As per the discussion thread above with Kevin Murray, it might be possible to tweak WP:N to address the concerns in WP:NOTNEWS without resorting to an entirely new guideline.  The central idea would be that WP:N currently appears to have a loophole allowing for an article about a transitory event for which the only sources are news articles all of which are written in the same very short time frame and which contain a great deal of redundant information.  
Specifically, the central theme of WP:N is that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other."  I believe the loophole is in how "multiple" is defined.  In WP:N it says that:
The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute "multiple" sources.
That's pretty close, but it leaves open the possibility of, for example, two or three news sources each writing their own, independent story of the same event, all of which have similar information and are written in the same one to three day period.  Such cotemporaneous news coverage probably shouldn't count as "multiple sources" when it comes to news events, because they're not necessarily adding any additional information on the subject and they don't really guarantee that there was any actual lasting interest in the topic beyond a couple of days.
One possible solution might be to change the quoted section above to something like this:
The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing articles regarding the same event, each article written within the same one to three day span, are not a multiplicity of works. On the other hand, several journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles over the course of a couple of weeks do constitute "multiple" sources.
This change would clarify that news articles all produced in the same initial spurt of information should not be counted as "multiple articles" for purposes of notability of an article.  Rather, to demonstrate notability an article should have multiple sources slightly more spread out over time to avoid having articles about subjects that only had a couple of days national or international interest before disappearing altogether.  It also, I think, would probably handle all four criteria in the current WP:NOTNEWS proposal.  That is, if something meets one of the four current criteria, it also should meet the suggested "multiple" wording above. 
What do you think? If this sounds good, I'll take the suggestion to WP:N.  Dugwiki 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.  --Kevin Murray 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I could live with that language too.  My first draft was trying to keep the language as close to the current version of WP:N as possible.  The key word to include here appears to be "simultaneous". Dugwiki 23:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related proposal for WP:N (as alternative to a new guideline) 

message: How does this square with the stipulation in WP:N that notability is not a matter of importance? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It fundamentally disagrees with it ;) But it does so in a very specific and well-framed way. Unless you're arguing that 15-minutes-of-fame stories all should have their place in the 'pedia because they satisfy the letter of WP:N? Zunaid©® 08:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability is not importance 

message: The proposal makes a lot of sense to me, particularly as a way of counterbalancing WP:BIO. Many people theoretically meet WP:BIO by achieving 15 minutes of fame through a news event. And sadly, most news events are bad news, not good news. Kla'quot 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong support in principle 

message: As currently written, the 9/11 terrorist attack could not be the subject of a Wikipedia article until weeks later. That's a flaw in the policy. Any news-notability policy should allow for immediate editing of a story that's obviously going to have a long-term impact. Noroton 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is where one can reasonably apply WP:IAR. It's not necessarily a flaw in the guideline though. There are other projects funded by the Wikimedia foundation that cover breaking news. What is happening is that Wikipedia is parasitically stealing the limelight (and probably editors too) from its sister project. Wiki means fast, not first, we are not here to document breaking news as it happens, with an article in constant flux. Encyclopedias are reference works that are meant to provide an overall balanced picture of a subject. Without resorting to our own synthesis of various news material available this can only be reasonably done once other analysts do the research and documentation. Only then should we write about the subject from these hopefully reliable sources in a neutral manner. Zunaid©® 08:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that's a feature, not a bug. Wikinews is for immediate reporting on something the minute it happens. Wikipedia is for an encyclopedia article (if warranted) on the event once the dust settles a bit. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 9/11 test

message: I'm dubious that we can find any workable way of avoiding judgment calls to decide what will be encyclopedic in the future. I think it would be better if we had automatic review of news stories at set intervals, something like this:
:When an article about a current event is created, a tag is placed on it (something like the "Articles for Deletion" tags) requiring an AfD-like vote two weeks after the article is started. If the article passes that vote, wait for a longer time period and have another automatic AfD debate in, say, four months. If the article passes that, do another in three years. Then maybe another in 10 years (all time periods after the original start of the article). The future debates should be automatically nominated by Wikipedia software and not rely on humans making the future nominations. If the creator of the article doesn't put on the AfD-like tag the instant the article is created, then anyone can put it on, and the clock starts ticking when the article is started. So if you find one three weeks after the article is started, you slap on the tag and it's immediately up for a vote.
Three potential problems: 
# Admittedly, this doesn't address what standards should be used in assessing notability, but I think it makes those decisions more likely to be correct. Perhaps the easiest standard would be a judgment call rather than a standard. The editors should ask themselves "Do I think this article will be useful to a large number of readers at the time of the next scheduled vote?" It's not quite subjective, although it involves some guesswork and some judgment about what kinds of things are of lasting value.
# Also, this is more than just a guideline change but would involve deeper Wikipedia practices, but not practices all that different from what we do now, except for some kind of "timebomb" trigger to set off automatic nominations. 
# Admittedly, there may be arguments over whether an article with a News-AfD notice slapped on it is really a news story, but I don't think that will happen too often. If that kind of dispute comes up, I suppose it would go to administrators for some kind of decision. Noroton 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time-bomb method 

message: I reverted Black Falcon's rejected tag, as per above it appears he did so prematurely.  He claimed in the history note that "only one editor replied", but failed to account for the fact that there is extensive discussion about this guideline both before and after Black Falcon's specific conversation with another editor.  
Moreover, the rejected tag implies that the guideline in principle could never receive consensus, which does not appear to necessarily be the case.  Almost all the editors here have agreed that the general goal of the guideline is correct, but the question was in some of the specific details in how to create it or, alternatively, if a fix such as the one Kevin did to WP:N would correct the primary issues being discussed.  
So I have reverted the tag back to "proposed" pending more concrete results from the WP:N change.  Assuming that change remains in effect, then this page can instead be converted into an essay on articles which solely use news articles as sources. Dugwiki 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I am fine with that.  My rationale for adding the rejected tag was this: given the seeming lack of strong consensus at WP:N, it was unlikely that this would achieve consensus support.  Also, the text of the proposal had not been changed for 20 days and discussion had slowed down considerably.  However, your suggestion to wait on the discussion at WP:N seems prudent.  Cheers, Black Falcon 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say the that the concept has not been rejected, but the need for a separate page has been rejected.  I think leaving this as a proposal is misleading, though marking it as historical with an explanation could be a more clear message than rejection. --Kevin Murray 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can buy that reasoning, Kevin.  I'd still like to see what happens at WP:N, though, before changing the label or making major changes to this proposal. Dugwiki 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm do not yet support that conclusion.  Let the page evolve for a while.  The project is not well-served by an attempt to rush to judgment.  Rossami (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How long should a proposal be discussed before it is rejected? IMHO this proposed guideline is still young, let it sit for a while before we reject it out of hand. I suggest we tag it with "pause, pending whatever-the-hell finally happens at WP:N". Discussion at WP:N has stalemated it seems, putting this guideline in limbo. Until such time as WP:N goes one way or the other it is fruitless discussing or rejecting this proposal, since we cannot move forward until we know what form WP:N is going to take (and whether it will stick of course). Zunaid©® 13:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Black Falcon rejected tag 

message: I oppose this proposal very strongly. Also note that any time WP:NOT#IINFO is used to justify something without regard for what WP:NOT#IINFO actually says, that's usually a very bad sign. Everyking 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edison the fact this idea is cited by people who support it in AFD's is not important, what is is the fact that none of the AFD's have deleted anything. Your policy has been rejected 10 times now please stop disrupting wikipedia as per wp:point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil and assume good faith.  -- Black Falcon 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No they are not inappropriate, i had to do lots of extra work on an AFd because someone wants to push a policy that does not have concensus. They went to lots of different articles and spam created AfD's, that is a clear violation of wp:point. Hypnosadist 09:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad idea

message: Reviewing the opinions expressed about this page, I see a majority supporting the basic principles behind the page.  I see some concerns about the mechanisms of the proposal and some opinions that it is either redundant or unnecessary.  I actually see relatively few opinions that actively oppose the basic premise of the page.  
Rather than leave this tagged as "rejected" (which, I believe, gives a false impression of the actual conclusions reached by the community), I propose to rewrite the page - to drop it back from a proposal to an essay that more fully descibes what editors mean "Wikipedia is not WikiNews".  The current version will, of course, remain in history for anyone to review.  Any thoughts?  Rossami (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fine idea to preserve the good work and collaborative editing which went into this proposal by preserving it as an essay. This would make it easier to incorporate any good ideas into whatever guideline such as WP:N or WP:AI remains when the dust settles. General standard 3 in WP:AIexpresses some of the ides which arose from this guideline proposal, except for downgrading news feature items about cute animals, wierd water cooler stories, and children who are the subject of searches, all of which gain TV and newspaper space but would never be found in a traditional encyclopedia, and just generally seem more suitable for Wikinews than for a permanent place in Wikipedia, just as we would probably not create an article for a similar story of 50 or 100 years ago, even though it was the subject of numerous newspaper stories over a period of days.[User:Edison|Edison]] 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with this becoming an essay as long as it reads like an essay, not a policy in sheep's clothing.  I think the most important aspects of this have made it into WP:N, but would certainly support efforts to incorporate the inclusion of other important aspects. --Kevin Murray 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to a guideline on the subject either (e.g. we have WP:WINAD as policy even) but if it's not an (intended) guideline it needs a new name. WP:NOT WikiNews is de facto policy, at any rate, and should go without saying. >Radiant< 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I have argued above in the section "Rejecting this proposal", this proposal is not like WP:WINAD.  Whereas WP:WINAD addresses the content of articles, this proposal targets the nature of their sources, irrespective of article content.  I agree about the name change.  Leaving it as "Notability (news)" could create the false impression that this is an official corollary of the other notability guidelines.  Also, if this is made into an essay, this version of the page should still exist as a record (i.e., we shouldn't move this page to a new title and simply replace the current tags with ).  -- Black Falcon 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the page