Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Significance

message: I took as my inspiration Jimbo's statements at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance:
"Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." and also "When I say 'verifiable' I don't mean 'in some abstract fantasy theory' I mean actually practically verifiable by Wikipedians". Hiding  talk 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspiration

message: This doesn't seem to define any sort of concrete standard of notability/significance to replace the existing standard of "no consensus to delete this article == sufficiently notable." What do you envision coming from this policy that doesn't already come from existing policies? This really seems to be more of an essay than a policy proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until "third party sources" is amended to include worthwhile internet resources. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an issue for WP:RS. Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and I oppose this until the issue at WP:RS is cleared up in that regard. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear that the burden of providing sources is on the editors who add and/or want to keep edits. I know what it's like in AfD discussions, and I now largely stay away from them because I got so frustrated over keep votes from editors who did not understand or did not care about policy overwhelming the discussions, and too many closing admins who just counted noses rather than considering what policy said. I don't think we need new policies and guidelines; I think we need to do a better job of sticking to the policies that exist. If we removed all the unsourced edits from the articles in Wikipedia, we would have a lot of empty articles that could be speedied. Of course, most attempts to remove unsourced items from articles generate revert wars and other unhealthy consequences, because too many editors are not really committed to making this a quality encyclopedia if it means their favorite subjects are gutted and/or deleted because they are not sourced properly. I have provided published sources for something like 98% of the content I have added to Wikipedia, so I don't feel much sympathy for those who argue against removing unsourced material. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the same boat as you, I think there's one article for which I haven't as yet provided a source, and I too have avoided afd for about a year now.  That's the reason I'd like to get this through, and it's a little frustrating to hear it sums up what it's supposed to, but that it's crufting up the ruleset.  Hmmm.  What troubles me is that if Wikipedia moves in the direction it is heading, consensus will shift and the policies will be amended.  If this does end up an essay, where is the best place for it?  We've already got two notability essays, and I'd like this to be at least somewhat visible; it seems to have a fair consensus, in that it sums up policies and guidelines.  Is it worth taking this further? Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that I don't think we need to add any new policy on, just live with the existing policy. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this supposed to add?

message: Many have mentioned that notability is a word of our craft as compiliers of encyclopedias and almanacs.  It doesn't possess a common meaning.  It's a way of representing that a list of buildings that contains some are not the tallest, largest, or oldest, but nonetheless are notable, i.e. they merit inclusion in a list of notable buildings.  That quality of the notability is established (outside the obvious objective qualities) only by consensus of editors applying some non-objective criteria.
After the fact, it might be possible to discern what the criteria were for selection (i.e. perhaps a notable building appeared in an objectively famous film, or the building was one of few which survived an objectively well-known disaster) and then declare that these criteria apply to future inclusions to the notable buildings list.
*Notablity is a word that means we Wikipedia editors are not constrained to objective or even articulatable criteria.
*Significant is a word that informally means "intelligent people know this" or "people ought to know this".
So in 2006, Abraham Lincoln remains a significant president, and Millard Fillmore doesn't.  However among the people who care about American history, any president is significant, in fact, any cabinet member is significant.  However, there's a threshold for significance among the officers of government, who was the deputy to Fillmore's Secretary of War, Charles Magill Conrad?  As a person with an interest in American history, I'd offer the editorial judgment that's not significant, even if one could verify the identity of that person. patsw 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's not really a word shift, and both words have been used on Wikipedia for roughly the same amount of time.  I just thought it was easier to start a fresh page here than another temp page of WP:N is all.  I apologise for any confusion this may have caused. Hiding  talk 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why it's not a word shift?  For example, could you elaborate on what's notable but not significant and what's significant but not notable. patsw 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you're saying.  Sorry.  It's probably best if I just withdraw this suggestion then. Hiding  talk 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word shift from ''notability'' to ''significant''

message: This has to be either: 
*a) So vague that anyone can deem it to apply to an article or not, based simply on what they would have thought about the article anyway.
*b) A duplicate of other guidelines or a huge unwieldy substitute for new detailed guidelines.
Speedy delete Hawkestone 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, you seem to miss the point somewhat.  We have a clean up template based on Importance which can't at present link to a specific policy, since we don't have one.  Therefore, it is becoming increasingly hard to improve articles and discuss those articles with people who simply refuse to accept a concept for which we have no definition.  Having to restate the same thing over and over in discussion is becoming annoying, this page would simply prevent that.  Since everyone agrees that this present guidelines, I don't see what the problem is.  This page would help elucidate a concept outlined over five pages and help build an encyclopedia.  So far all objections seem to be, yes it summates existing policy, but, it seems rather pointless.  Could people please consider the problem this page's creation attempts to address? Hiding  talk 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a total waste of time

message: It has been suggested to me that this be reproposed as a notability proposal.  Therefore I have moved the page and hope to restart discussions on that point. Hiding  talk 08:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you propose to incorporate any new information or fresh view in to the existing guideline? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean?  It's a proposal, it's there to be edited and discussed. How do you mean? Hiding  talk 22:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that you may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability and see if there is anything in your proposal that can be added to that guideline, rather than create another guideline. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability isn't a guideline.  The whole point is to get some sort of guideline established. Hiding  talk 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability proposal 

message: It looks confusing, subjective and irrelevant. There are already guidelines in place to prevent the stupid examples from happening. For great justice. 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there aren't such guidelines. There is a vaguely-accepted idea that notability is a criterion for inclusion, but it's not a guideline, much less policy. John Reid 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty! And there is no concensus on notability. Take a read of verifiability, no original research, sources, WP:NOT, there are tons of policies. This new rulecruft is not needed! 67.109.101.226 22:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't think this is necessary

message: I strongly support notability as a guideline for inclusion. If it's not notable it should not be here. (I'm very open to creating a wiki expressly for non-notable content of all kinds -- but Wikipedia is not this.) 
I think this proposal's wording needs a great deal of improvement: 
* Notability must be defined as unambiguously as possible and in such a way that the definition can apply to articles on any type of subject. 
* Notability must be justified objectively, by showing value derived from upholding the standard. 
* Notability must be derived subjectively, by showing its relationship to existing policy. 
Good to make a beginning. John Reid 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've defined notability as I see it: as the topic being mentioned in reliable sources independent of Wikipedia and the subject itself.  I'm not sure you can get a consensus on any position beyond that, and I'm not sure I'd support it eithert.  I think that is the key to notability on Wikipedia.  I thought I had already addressed the other two points. Hiding  talk 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys have just defined verifiability! You're too funy! Go read the existing policy! 67.109.101.226 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs improvement 

message: Notabiity has long been a concern of mine, even before I began to edit in earnest. As a reader of Wikipedia, I often found myself not simply searching for particular information but browsing freely. I like to learn stuff. My favorite link on any page used to be Special:Random. But the bigger this project has grown, the more pages have been added on trivial or esoteric subjects and the less interesting a random article is likely to be. I was surprised to learn that Notability is not even a guideline, much less policy; it's an . Indeed, it does not have wide support. 
As  Lore Sjöberg writes in his perhaps tongue-in-cheek Wired column, The Wikipedia FAQK, non-notable may just mean "A subject you're not interested in." Editors who don't hesitate to flag this article or that as non-notable rush to the defense of their pet cruft. Everyone thinks his topic -- however specialized or obscure -- deserves a place here. So, I've reluctantly concluded, any general standard of notability is doomed. The problem is political; there is just no way to get wide acceptance of such a standard. 
"Wikipedia is not paper" and in theory there is no limit to the number of pages we can store and serve. But each page does have costs associated with it, small as they may be per page. Storage and bandwidth are not issues but human time and energy certainly is. Some of us specialize, for instance, in fixing typos. Time spent fixing typos on a nearly worthless page is time not spent fixing notable pages. Or, for example, consider that almost any page has the potential to turn (as Sjöberg put it) into an argument nexus. Each such may or may not become a focus of contention, a battleground for two or three editors. These in turn must be counseled and perhaps sanctioned; all kinds of editors, from rank-and-file members through ArbCom may have to spend considerable time and energy dealing with a situation that might never have arisen if not for a trivial article. Yes, of course, those members might have fought over an edit to something notable -- but then, one might feel one's time was well spent defending neutrality or verifiability. I'm afraid I just can't get up very much enthusiasm to defend those principles as they might apply to an article that is pure cruft to begin with. Instead of a sense of satisfaction at a job well done, I tend to walk away thinking, "So what." 
We can certainly fight cruft, trivia, and esoterica with the tools we already have; just not very effectively. And I've finally come to believe that we will never be able to pass any tougher policy. After all, if you deleted all but the truly notable articles, I imagine that 9 of 10 pages would have to go. 
I am thinking about a solution that will be tolerable -- if not to everybody, to most editors. It will allow a wide range of content to remain but also allow editors who would rather avoid certain kinds of content to do so. It would be something like an extension of the filtering on watchlist. I don't have details now but editors who are interested in working with me on this should feel free to contact me. John Reid 06:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm forced to agree.  Right now all Wikipedia articles have equal "status" (except for the few that are "FA" or "FA" candidates).  It would be helpful to filter the database as suggested above, so that editors can work on a subset of articles that more closely match their concept of appropriate content.  Otherwise, I'm afraid too much human time is being wasted going in so many directions at once that a majority of editors will simply give up (many already have).  Slowmover 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So enable users to exclude categories that they don't think are 'notable' - users could filter out pop-culture, science fiction, or religion, anything that they did not want to read about, without removing it from people who wanted it. 67.109.101.226 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's actually a really good idea - let users define what is notable themselves, and filter it from their page views. That way no body has to read something they're not interested in, and nobody gets things that they are interested in deleted. For great justice. 15:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If the notability standards have inconsistencies, then we should clean those up, not remove the notability requirements.  Otherwise, we will have an article on every McDonald's that any small town newspaper ever mentioned.  At AfD, the extremist-keepists would yell "The Small village monthly news reports in their Spring issue that the Small Village McDonalds opened in February".  It is verified, so we must keep it!  We need notability standards to prevent this sort of thing. Johntex\talk 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Determining what is "notable" depends on the POV of that person. And that is ultimately the problem with notability. I would reject the assertion that removing notability “standards” would cause that scenario (or others like it) to happen. The other Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be more than enough to handle such concerns. While you might worry about extremist keepists, im worried about elitist deletists who dont feel that certain things belong on the site just because it is their POV. DanielZimmerman 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deciding what is notable is a judgement call, but it is no more POV than deciding what image is informative/pleasing to-the-eye, what description of an event strikes the right neutral tone, deciding if an article is too-advanced or too-simple for our target readers, deciding if a source is reputable enough to cite, etc.  We have guidelines to help us make these decisions, it should be the same with notability.  If the broad community agrees to a guideline, then both the extremist-keepists and the extremest-deletists will have a check on their behaviour.  The middle ground prevails.  If we have no minimum notability guidelines, then the extreme keepist would be able to run amouk. Johntex\talk 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notability is more of a judgement call than those other things listed. If we COULD have reasonable guidelines that are consistent that establish when a person is "notable enough" for wikipedia then we should do so. The problem is that at this point we do not have guidelines that are reasonable or consistent. We allow an author who sells 5000 copies to be considered notable, but question that notability if it is an author of a textbook. 5000 book sales is enough for these authors but 5000 votes is not enough for a politician. Your concerns of estremist-keepists can be handled with all of the other policies and guidelines. DanielZimmerman 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please remember that the other policies all predate these guidelines.  If those policies had been sufficient to handle these concerns, there would not have been such loud and frequent calls for these guidelines in the first place.  These guidelines were created in response to a perceived need.  You can argue that we found the wrong solution but it is unfair to deny the history that led to them.  Rossami (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the wrong solution, imo. Notability is something that is very subjective. On what scale should someone be considered notable? My congressman is very notable in my district. In New York, if you said his name I doubt many people whould know, or care, who he is. However, he is very notable in India. But if you then go to Israel, Russia, or France; I am sure he is again, not notable. Im sure there are other Congressmen who are only notable within their district. Take an author who writes on a very specific topic. He may be very notable within that educational community but anyone who doesnt care about that topic wouldnt know him and therefore wouldnt be notable to the majority of people. I cant see notability as something that should be included as a guideline here because of the subjectiveness that I have explained above. DanielZimmerman 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another direction 

message: I disagree with this idea of a notabiltiy guideline to begin with. It is stating NPOV, NOR, and verfiability, but it is only taking parts of each. It does not consider awkward cases of little outside evidence, yet the object itself is very popular. It also give undue weight to some of the more minor issues. That thing which you mentioned at the top, whatever it is, has little knowledge of it and is not widely understood. I do agree that there should be an article on it, if someone knew how to write it. Yet, I do not agree on the idea that should get an article, yet something widely popular and acclaimed does not get something. Like an internet meme, for instance. Those will not get a mention, unless it is from a source on the internet calling it the "Fad of the week". I think it is safe to say that internet websites with more than 1,000,000 hits are more notable than something less than a thousand people know about. I firmly disagree with this concept. I also disagree with the concept of 3rd party sources only in this guideline. WP:V already covered this as a policy, except it leaves a few exceptions. Disagreed on the entire policy.68.192.25.106 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, disagree. Existing policy exists to deal with this that is clear, and does not introduce POV problems. This is harmful, and should stop. 67.109.101.226 22:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. You're on the money. Verifiability is the way to go. Simple, relevant, and NPOV. For great justice. 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability is not NPOV.  Deciding what is a reputable source involves POV. Johntex\talk 02:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No it doesn't. It enshrines the POV of a small group. 'Notability' is by definition POV. Let's get back to basics. There is no real problem here. Verifiability deals with all of the real world problems, and does not introduce POVmongering. For great justice. 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw that, and I disagree with that. 68.192.25.106 15:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree with what? For great justice. 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on the point that all things included in an article must be notable for inclusion.68.192.25.106 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement. 

message: Anyone object if I withdraw and userfy this? Hiding The wikipedian meme 18:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's useful as a consolidation point for a general discussion on these principles.  It also prompted me to do a little analysis.  I started to wonder if there is a correlation between a user's stated opinions on the topic of notability and their length of experience on Wikipedia.  My hypothesis was that more experienced users might be more likely to favor proposals like this because they will have seen more vandalism and clearly inappropriate content - a perspective that newer users might not yet have had the opportunity to develop.  My preliminary findings are at user:Rossami/Sandbox.  I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the data yet but it's proving to be an interesting exercise.  Rossami (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting.  I'm doubly fascinated because I feel, personally, that the longer I've been here, the more accepting I am of including more, and not less.  Go figure. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, userfy away! Existing verifiability guidelines aleady deal with the non-existant 'problem' of articles on every chair in every McDonalds. For great justice. 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that is not true, as I am pointing out to For great justice. in a discussion on my talk page. We desperately need notability guidelines/policies. Johntex\talk 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is an example of an article which should be deleted because the topic of the article is simply not notable: User:Johntex/Cruft Sample  Unfortuantely, the event is verifiable and it cannot be tossed out except on notability grounds. Johntex\talk 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to be a complete pain in the posterior, but why? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fair question.  Here are some reasons: (1) To be taken seriously as a reference work, we need to avoid coverage of completely frivolous topics. (2) To avoid violating WP:NOT, we are not creating an article on every non-notable person. (3) Too many articles that are of no consequence means too many articles to clean-up, watch-over for vandalism, etc. (4) Too mnay articles of no consequence makes Recent Changes virtually impossible to watch (5) Too many articles of no consequence makes it harder to policy for vandalism (6) Too many articles of no consequence makes it harder to avoid libel.  (I could easily put in a libelous statemtn about Bill Gates at some random elementary school article or minor star trek character article or wherever.  There is no rule that vandals have to only put libelous statement on the living person's article...  These are just a few reasons why articles on frivolous topics are bad. Johntex\talk 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I'll tell you that I'm not at all bothered with 3, 4, or 5.  Limiting articles based on what can or cannot be done with them doesn't mesh well with me, and I fear the slippery slope.  As for beign "taken seriously," I could counter with "To be taken seriously as a reference work, we must not discriminate against what may appear to some as frivolous topics."  WP:NOT paper, etc.  As for #2, perhaps so, but if there's verifiability guidelines in place, doesn't that kind of answer itself?  #6 is the only one I can understand the concern about, but, again, as with 3, 4, and 5, we can do that now.  I can list a number of articles I'm the only contributor to, and could very well remain that way and could add anything to.  It's not a serious issue NOW. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's focus in on #2 and #6 for now.  Verifyability does not solve number 2.  I have been mentioned in newspaper articles, that makes my existence verifiable.  My mother is in the phone book, her existence is verifiable.  That is not sufficient justification for either of us to have our own articles.  #6 would get worse if we have no notability hurdle.  Today's internet meme or garage band single will not be on anyone's watchlist in 2050 when we have more than 100 million articles.  It does not even necesarily stop with one article per person.  Someone could write an article about PersonX's high school graduation ceremony - it was in the paper it was verifiable.  Someone could write an article about PersonX's wedding, it was in the paper, it was verifiable.  Oh sure, maybe someone would suggest those could be merged into PersonX's main non-notable article, but 10 or 20 of these non-notable events will make PersonX's non-notable article too long to keep merging stuff into it.  Before long, PersonX has as many sub-articles to his bio as John Kerry does.  I'm no radical deletionist.  I've defended keeping a lot of stuff.  We can set the bar for notability wherever we think it best, but we should definitely have a bar set. Johntex\talk 01:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be honest, I've seen your "vandals using non-notables as libel targets in 2050" come up a few times on my watchlist tonight, and I honestly don't get it.  Verifiability by a phone book?  I dunno.  But if you've been in some newspaper articles, why not?  You've been covered for newsworthy events, you're notable.  #6 could get worse, too, but, again, it's a risk now.   Why stop article growth and let vandals win? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would draw the line at verifiability by phone book at least that will be a start.  I don't know when the first on-line phone-book became available - maybe 1990?  - maybe 2000?  By 2100 those will enter the public domain, and more following each and every year.  As for an article on anyone who has been in a newspaper article, are you working to repeal WP:BIO? As to your final point, surely you can't think I want to stop article growth just because I want to protect minimum standards of notability?  We'll still be creating 1,000's of articles a day on notable subjects.  The vandals will more likely win in the "Rambot-all-phonebooks-into-Wikipedia-scenario". Johntex\talk 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For God's sake. Please read existing policy. Phone book entries are already prohibited. Go to the back of the class, and don't try to make more rules until you've read the ones we have. For great justice. 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userfy? 

message: I've tagged this as historical, there hasn't been cogent editing or discussion of the proposal for over a week. Hiding Talk 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical tag