Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 17

message: Where wood be a good place to get a set of articles checked for notability - eg those I have pointed too at WP:AN#Tolkien_literature_stubs_etc - I'd like to know in general what I can expect to see kept and which (if any) will be deleted? Have I already asked at the right place.87.102.88.218 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where would be a good place 

message: *Wikipedia:Inherent notabilty
Please help shape what topics have inherent notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherent notability 

message: --Kevin Murray 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  My estimation is that it's pretty close to policy.  However, the nature of the beast is that there are (and probably need to be) a fair number of exceptions (both ways) made for specific situations.  Given the need for, and reality of, flexibility, I'm not convinced that it's necessary for N to be policy.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd oppose a move to make Wikipedia:Notability policy, because I think there's just too much room for abuse if it's made policy.  As a guideline, it should be followed in most — nearly all — cases, but as Kubigula says there are exceptions.  If WP:N became policy I could easily see someone using it indiscriminately as a bulldozer, without considering those exceptions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole concept of notability remains controversial, and exists under a delicate compromise that the community can live with it as a guideline. I think trying to elevate it to polcy would only open a can of worms. Dhaluza 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy or guideline? 

message: What are good ways to prove or show that a subject is nonnotable? I feel that deletionism is too rampant on Wikipedia today, and people are using this guideline as a policy, and often excessively so. When something new crops up among numerous people, and the media has barely noticed it, but numerous chatrooms, message boards, and blogs already have information on the phenomenon, than how is it nonnotable? I think our guidelines for notability at the moment rely too much on official sources and mass media.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blogs, chat rooms, etc are not considered Reliable sources.  Before considering Notability (a guideline), you have to consider verifiability (a policy).  In general it is not possible to pass Notability with out first passing verifiability.  If the only sources are from blogs and such then the topic probably is covered by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Content.  Jeepday (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not possible to prove that something is not notable. But we do impose a burden of proof that articles be able to make some assertion of notability, and that there be some objective evidence to support this claim. We don't allow message boards and chats as reliable sources, because people can and do write whatever they like in these forums. Blogs are generally disallowed, but there is an exception for blogs where the author can be identified as a reliable source. Frankly, there is plenty of material from reliable sources that still needs to be included, so don't waste your time trying to add material from the extreme fringes of notability--it will probably only get deleted anyway. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requested articles for ideas on what type of material really needs to be added. 03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An aversion to online message boards is understandable, but I think the current wave of deletionism goes too far the other way.  One of the appeals of Wikipedia relative to traditional encyclopedias is its speed and flexibility with regard to current trends and events.  But by their very nature, knowledge of such things will be embedded mostly in people's heads, or in other online media, not in some traditional published source.  An independent scholar might be ideal, but by excluding more involved expertise, Wikipedia cuts itself off from its potential strength.  Unlike the 1911 Britannica, which happily invited experts to write on what they knew, quirky biases and all, in the interest of being a comprehensive survey of human knowledge and activity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.253.208 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have such comments from someone who is not anonymous...There are so many nice comments that come from anonymous editors, yet they are not taken seriously by the admins and sysops because of their anonymity. To too many Wikipedia editors, anonymous editors are simply vandals and thus not to be trusted. (While most vandalism does, indeed, come from the anon sector, there are solid edits that are also made by anons.) All the same, some of us wouldn't mind knowing at least an user name.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving that a subject is non-notable 

message: A link to this essay was inserted and then removed, from the seciton giving a list of essays related to notability . Listing such as essay does not endorse it, so the reason for removing the link does not appear evident to me. DGG (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the spelling err in the title, placed in an alpha sort in the list and added a short description. Jeepday (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The essay is nothing more than one editor's listings of things he believes are inherently notable. There's not even any reasoning for why these should be considered inherently notable. The link should be removed at least until the essay is more fully developed. Chaz Beckett 12:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a topic of ongoing debate, the essay needs work to move from a single point of view.  There is reasonable cause for the essay to exist and there is nothing that says a work must be a finished product before it can be linked.  Leave the link and develop the essay, otherwise who is going to decide when the essay is developed enough for the link? Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine that the essay exists, but until it's more than a list of six topics that a single editor considers inherently notable, it shouldn't be linked from the article. It should be linked from this talk page (and other talk pages) to encourage more editors to work on it. Once's it's become a useful essay, providing at least some reasoning for each topic's inherent notability, I think it could be re-added to the page. Chaz Beckett 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be moved here until it can be developed a bit further. Chaz has a point about it not even explaining why such things have inherited notability. Since we have debates about this type of thing, it would be unwise to have a link to an essay that currently doesn't explain itself. It would open a door to arguments that all things inherit notability, without the necessity of explaination. I just think it sends mixed signals for the guideline if it doesn't explain itself.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see it rather as a convenient summary of Common Outcomes. Probably it is a little too cryptic at present, but there is no endorsement implied by listing it here. It's an essay, and says its an essay. Personally, I'd like to see it developed into a guideline. DGG (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't state anything that would make it relevant as a guideline, secondonly even if it did it would be something merged into this page, and not something on its own.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just posted a  on the essay this morning.  As it stands it is in conflict with logic and wiki policy.  In it current condition I think it is more appropriate for User space the Wiki space.  The essay is one persons perspective attempting to masquerade as Wikipedia consensus.  I am leaning strongly towards Bignole's argument and wondering if it should be nominated for deletion and redirect to here Wikipedia:Notability. Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is more flawed logic, if Sons have inherited notability because their father has an article then all of God's children would have inherited notability because of their relationship to Adam (depending on your religious perspective). Jeepday (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean we have to give the real Kal-El his own article, since his father is notable? I think people try and use Inherted Notablity for that reason, when in fact it's uncalled for. It's rare that one would "inherit" notability simply because they are connected to something that is notable, even with television episode articles (which is one of those commonly used excuses in their existence). If the only thing you can say about a person's child is that they are the child of a notable individual, then they don't need an article to themselves. What I see is that there is sometimes confusion about what deserves mentioning, based on that "inherited notability," and what deserves its own article because of that. You can mention the child of a notable person, under the guise that the child has inherited notability from the father, on that father's page. But, it's very different to say "we should have a page for the child since we have a page for the father," when the child probably has not done anything that would warrant mentioning in a separate article. It's one thing to have an overly long section that gets split off to its own article (which is one concept of inherited notability, which has nothing to do with actually inheriting true notability, but more along the lines that there's so much information about this one thing that it's cluttering up the page and it's worth separating on its own), and another to say "let's create a separate article from the start. You'd open the door to everything and anything having a page (no matter how trivial) because you can eventually link it to something that has notability (shall we do Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note however, that WP:SUMMARY does not allow for non-notable topics to be split off, it's not a free ticket to create articles about whatever we want. I have seen a lot of recent AfDs of material that has been split of per summary style. IvoShandor 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Inherent notabilty]] 

message: I see the next challenge for WP:N the addressing of inherent notability and inherited notability.  There is a history of people insisting that inherent and inherited notability don’t exist, but this is not true.  In practice, WP:N is only applied to a (large) subset of subjects.  My impression is that, roughly speaking, subjects that are not of human creation are not subject to WP:N.  Such things, apparently having inherent notability, include astronomical objects, living or once living natural species, or information from archeology, but certainly not theories of such things.  Things of inherent notability are not required to have coverage in secondary sources, reliable primary sourcing is sufficient.  Non-recent history articles also seem to have inherent notability, although such articles usually have no trouble being linked to secondary sources.  WP:N seems to be especially firmly applied to things whose appearance in wikipedia may be motivated by promotional or self interest (aka spam?), such as companies, organisations, commercial products, theories, and software.
The other thing is inherited notability.  Basically, this seems to successfully apply to single subjects of considerable notability that spill over into satellite articles.  The Tolkien articles, Harry Potter articles, scouting articles and Pokemon articles come to mind as examples, and I am sure that there are a great many more.  These subjects have plenty of reputable secondary sources, but the secondary sources often do not have significant coverage for individual satellite articles.  I have seen the phrase “AfD proof” used, but I think “inherited notability” is a better explanation.
I think that WP:N needs to explicitly allow for both inherent and inherited notability, because it happens in practice, and because it is a good idea.  I don’t think the essay is of much help, as it stands.  --SmokeyJoe 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is more flawed logic, if Sons have inherited notability because their father has an article then all of God's children would have inherited notability because of their relationship to Adam (depending on your religious perspective). Jeepday (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean we have to give the real Kal-El his own article, since his father is notable? I think people try and use Inherted Notablity for that reason, when in fact it's uncalled for. It's rare that one would "inherit" notability simply because they are connected to something that is notable, even with television episode articles (which is one of those commonly used excuses in their existence). If the only thing you can say about a person's child is that they are the child of a notable individual, then they don't need an article to themselves. What I see is that there is sometimes confusion about what deserves mentioning, based on that "inherited notability," and what deserves its own article because of that. You can mention the child of a notable person, under the guise that the child has inherited notability from the father, on that father's page. But, it's very different to say "we should have a page for the child since we have a page for the father," when the child probably has not done anything that would warrant mentioning in a separate article. It's one thing to have an overly long section that gets split off to its own article (which is one concept of inherited notability, which has nothing to do with actually inheriting true notability, but more along the lines that there's so much information about this one thing that it's cluttering up the page and it's worth separating on its own), and another to say "let's create a separate article from the start. You'd open the door to everything and anything having a page (no matter how trivial) because you can eventually link it to something that has notability (shall we do Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note however, that WP:SUMMARY does not allow for non-notable topics to be split off, it's not a free ticket to create articles about whatever we want. I have seen a lot of recent AfDs of material that has been split of per summary style. IvoShandor 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: inherent notability and inherited notability

message: Why is this "guideline" so strict? I find I completely agree with this edit: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, be a dick and ask for it's speedy deletion, because the last thing Wikipedia wants is to have a comprehensive guide to things that people could not gain information on otherwise; no, Wikipedia simply wants to regurgitate information that any idiot with a copy of The Encyclopedia Britannica could summon up."--Lobbyclose 09:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, this guideline doesn't quite say that.  The standard for speedy is "no assertion of notability." There is no requirement whatsoever to have a source to pass speedy. There is not even a requirement to have a source to escape deletion altogether--see WP:STUB. DGG (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DGG is correct, if the article says the subject is notable then it can not be speedily deleted for not meeting the WP:N guideline and it does not need a reference.  But WP:V, and WP:NOR are policies that require references "for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged".  If the statement of notability is challenged or likely to be challenged it May be removed if it is not referenced.  Policy puts the burden of evidence "with the editor who adds or restores material".  Unreferenced material may be removed at anytime per policy, but courtesy and WP:AGF generally direct an editor to either ask for references or make a good faith search for references before removing content. Jeepday (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for this "guideline" being so strict 

message: If an editor insists on adding some facts of dubious notabity to existing article, where can this be discussed in a wider forum? WP:FRINGE comes to mind, but what if it is not a fringe theory, but just some unotable detail from local news?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Relevance of content may be a proposal of interest to you. The proposed additions (particularly "Relevance") to Wikipedia:Reliable sources may also be of interest to you. This guideline covers whether or not a subject is notable for inclusion. It does not generally address individual claims within the articles of notable subjects. Otherwise, you could seek assistance in settling the disagreement, as such a conflict is essentially a content dispute. Vassyana 02:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It depends what you mean by "facts of dubious notability". Remember that notability does not directly limit article content. If it is actually that the information being added does not qualify under notability in its own right, that isn't actually a problem. (Of course, it still may be trivia, original research, etc.) -- BenBildstein 05:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to discuss notability? 

message: Hi! I've created a brief, extremely rough draft of a proposed guideline for notability for religious figures. Please feel free to edit and/or comment. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do not understand the need, at all, for all of these sub-guidelines on notability. All they do is reiterate the basic substance of WP:N with some specific examples for their field. Is there really a standing notability subarticle that does more than reassert the need for basic notability*? Vassyana 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures)]] 

message: I've raised concerns at the village pump about the several subarticles on notability being representative of instruction creep. Feedback would be appreciated. Vassyana 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction creep 

message: An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge; thus it, like other educational institutions, is a dispenser of information. Thus, it is impossible to merely remain in the background; an encyclopedia can inadvertently make a phenomenon more notable, and might somehow create notability by making more people aware of something. Because of this, usage of Wikipedia - or another encyclopedia - as a mere reflection of information might miss important phenomena going on in the background - phenomena which isn't recorded because nobody has bothered to write it down. How is someone supposed to get Wikipedia, or another dispenser of information, to notice such a phenomenon if all it is is a reflection of what other people wrote?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOT#OR Jeepday (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's the very rule I found fault with: the burden is upon its defenders to defend it with reasoning and with logic.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In any field of study, one must acknowledge the interaction of the scholar and the object of study. This is true in sociology, anthropology, medicine, physics, and even encyclopedia writing. For example, an intro to sociology course may discuss the duties of a responsible researcher, which should include a firm understanding of the fact that research does not go on in a vacuum - it can easily affect its object of study. The only encyclopedia that does not affect the world around it is an empty one. --Cheeser1 07:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The function of an encyclopedia 

message: Being a person whose article was deleted because its subject was "not notable" I believe that the definition of "notability" is way too biased (of course, being biased myself for the same reason.)  However, I honestly do believe that while my article was about an artist whose contribution to music may not be recognized immediately further research may prove that this artist's efforts are distinguishable enough to warrant inclusion to the wikipedia for its uniqueness alone. You say you're not about "popularity" but I can find many musical artists who are in your wikipedia who I could not justify their existence based upon your criteria.
Cpecot 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: short answer--when it does become recognized as notable, then it gets an article. And you are encouraged to propose deletion of subjects you think do not yet show notability. DGG (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the short answer is that it gets an article when someone writes one and includes verifiable sources. Very simple. Notability is a guideline, not a policy. --Romanski 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: I don't see this argument made clearly enough in the discussion above; I may have missed it. Guidelines should have the same structure as articles: the bottom pages should be comprehensible by itself, with a link to higher level pages; higher pages should consist largely of summaries links to the lower pages. WP:NC is an example of this. If an AfD turns on the notability of a number, there should be a page which says everything essential about the notability of numbers; because many editors won't climb the tree to look elsewhere. Redundancy is not a vice; Wikipedia is not paper. It may be useful from time to time to check whether there has been drift between the two pages and import language from one to the other; but each case should be ccnsidered on the merits. Often the language on pages like this one is a generalization, generally but not universally applicable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not to merge

message: I have noticed several skyscraper articles, such as The Orion and Brickell Station (development), have been tagged for deletion because it was non-notable. It appears there isn't a lot of discussion about the notability of skyscrapers and structures and I think it's time to define a standard in order to prevent future conflicts. Right now, I don't believe there is a clear guideline because I've seen an stub-skyscraper article (such as The Orion) which didn't assert notability but had either an external link reference to Emporis was deleted, while there are many other stub-skyscraper articles lying around Wiki that don't state their notability. If there is a clear consensus out of this discussion, I also propose creating a notability guideline for skyscrapers titled something like "Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings and structures)". Please share your thoughts on this matter. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that such a (separate) guideline should not be created at this time, but that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture#Create new articles section be appropriately expanded. Such a guideline could be split off at a later stage. (See this edit for my reasoning. G.A.S  14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think a separate guideline is not needed, the general WP:N guideline should suffice. If you have substantial sources, fine. If not, don't just create a mirror of Emporis. Also note that canceling a project does not erase notability, as some may erroneously assume. If anything, it increases notability by providing additional sources (i.e. why was it canceled?). Dhaluza 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many skyscrapers have very little information given, other than that provided by Emporis. Even many developer websites give very little information about actual project details. If the definition of "a mirror of Emporis", or SkyscraperPage for that matter, is a stub-page that only gives information about height, location, address, dates, architect, developer and possibly an image, then I'm afraid that many existing skyscraper stubs would fall into this category. Would these therefore not meet notability guidelines, despite having two reliable sources and possibly a third from the developer? Rai-me 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick search at my library turns up plenty about Brickell Station from sources like The Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Miami New Times, etc. We don't need a new guideline for topics that already meet the current guideline. --Dragonfiend 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, back to HI's question: do skyscrapers have inherent notability on Wiki? If information about a skyscraper is given on Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and a developer/architect website, but the building is not covered widely (or at all) in the press, does that make it less notable than a skyscraper that is mentioned in the press? Rai-me 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No group of things (other than I suppose "those things whose importance has been covered by reputable sources") has "inherent notability." The difference between a "notable" and "non-notable" building, mound of earth, person, etc. is that reputable sources have made note of the former and not of the latter. --Dragonfiend 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thank you for the clarification. But would references to Emporis, SkyscraperPage and possibly the developer website make a skyscraper article notable? These would all three be considered reliable references, but at the same time it would mean that stub articles that some would classify as "mirrors of Emporis" would meet guidelines. Rai-me 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope so. We should not have an article for each entry in reference books that include every instance of Class X. We should not include an article on every skyscraper; often the city article will say everything that needs to be said. In parallel, we don't have, and I hope we never will have, an article on every baronet who ever lived, although the Complete Baronettage has an entry on them all; we have articles on each baronetcy, with a succession table, and a sentence, paragraph, or section on each individual baronet, if they did anything interesting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of skyscrapers and structures (existing and future, including canceled projects) 

message: Do skyscrapers have any inherent notability on Wiki, just like mountains and lakes? Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search at my library turns up plenty about Brickell Station from sources like The Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Miami New Times, etc. We don't need a new guideline for topics that already meet the current guideline. --Dragonfiend 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, back to HI's question: do skyscrapers have inherent notability on Wiki? If information about a skyscraper is given on Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and a developer/architect website, but the building is not covered widely (or at all) in the press, does that make it less notable than a skyscraper that is mentioned in the press? Rai-me 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No group of things (other than I suppose "those things whose importance has been covered by reputable sources") has "inherent notability." The difference between a "notable" and "non-notable" building, mound of earth, person, etc. is that reputable sources have made note of the former and not of the latter. --Dragonfiend 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thank you for the clarification. But would references to Emporis, SkyscraperPage and possibly the developer website make a skyscraper article notable? These would all three be considered reliable references, but at the same time it would mean that stub articles that some would classify as "mirrors of Emporis" would meet guidelines. Rai-me 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope so. We should not have an article for each entry in reference books that include every instance of Class X. We should not include an article on every skyscraper; often the city article will say everything that needs to be said. In parallel, we don't have, and I hope we never will have, an article on every baronet who ever lived, although the Complete Baronettage has an entry on them all; we have articles on each baronetcy, with a succession table, and a sentence, paragraph, or section on each individual baronet, if they did anything interesting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability."
The article never really defines what long-term or short-term are. And then provides this comment. So should we delete all articles on products with short lifespans. For instance, a video game or a movie is usually only notable for few months. Musicians, particularly, one-hit-wonders also have the problem. It seems like notability defined by news coverage makes almost every article non-notable in any real sense of long-term.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.1.156 (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My  answer would be that a burst of new coverage nearly always means the mere reporting of facts without commentary, analysis or the consideration of alterntive perspectives.  In other words, news bursts are primary sources.  If nobody, anywhere, ever "says something about" the subject, then the subject is not presumed to be sufficiently notable for wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe 07:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Vaguness 

message: Forgive me if this notion has discussed before. But here is something that I was wondering: often, when articles are proposed for deletion, the protagonist will declare that their subject is "not notable". I wondered if wikipedia has any facility not recording hits/views of articles. Such a system might give some sort of vaguely usuable benchmark of how many people were looking up a particular topic... in which case this may add weight to its claim of 'notability'? Thoughts...?--feline1 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MediaWiki contains the feature to count page hits, although it seems to be disabled on Wikipedia for obvious performance reasons -- and the fact that such a thing isn't really that useful. However, page hits aren't necessarily an indicator of anything, as these can easily be skewed by a few people who can easily force-reload the page, and thus such a system would easily be abused. Also, an "addict" to the page can score as much as, say, five to ten times the hits a "passerby" would. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about counting searches for a particular phrase on the wikipedia "Search" box?--feline1 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Mediawiki doesn't have the capability of search counting. Plus... popular ≠ notable. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if lots of people have been looking something up in wikipedia, cos they want to find out about it: surely even pedantic wikilawyer would have conceed that virtually a definition of notability? Or am I wrong?--feline1 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People will do a search based on what interests them at the time, so in that respect such results would be biased. Doing a search "cos they want to find about it" doesn't necessary mean that the subject of their search is worthy of notice. In fact, sadly, with your idea, we run into the exact same problems as the "Google test", which will always be inherently biased towards current events, regardless of whether or not they will be notable in the future. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: MediaWiki does have something somewhat like that, used by :m:WikiCharts. But I don't think it would help much, similarly to the Wikipedia:Google_test#Notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's a separate tool that's not part of the basic MediaWiki software. Actually, I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it. :-) Of course, it runs into the problem of the "Google test" and shouldn't be used for notability, although there are other uses for these results beyond that. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page hits 

message: When an article has:
* a list of publications (listed as further reading) that establish the subject's notablity 
* but no references inside the article 
* ... like most STUB and START articles  
Should an editor in that case use Refimprove tag and not a Notability tag? I am arguing about this around the Management cybernetics article. I strongly oppose to the use of a Notability tag, because the subject itselve is proven notable. For outsiders, the readers, that seems like a wrong signal? So what to do? - Mdd 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to use the Notability tag and when the Refimprove tag 

message: Please see here. I'm just curious about what is the official word and view on this. Fame certainly could be seen to degrade. For example, J. Frank Dalton was famous for claiming to be Jesse James. He died in 1951, and it's certain these days that his "fame" is somewhat non-existent. His notability, however, hasn't degraded I would think. Fame = constant recent news and coverage (Google News non-Archive link). Britney Spears has both fame and notability currently. Assuming she lives to the ripe old year of 2051, will her notability degrade over time? 
Or, once "notable", is Britney's article a permanent placement, assuming that Wikipedia is around through 2051 and beyond? If she dropped completely off the map now, in 2007, would she be any less notable in 2100? Less famous, certainly--P.T. Barnum isn't famous in the sense of Britney today, but he will be eternally notable. Someone trying to AfD either of them would fail, I would hope. Just looking for some clarification on this. Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Today's news is tomorrow's history.  This is a question which has been discussed without a perfect solution.  It seems the consensus is that there should be some standard which divides notability from newsworthy, but there is no fine-line defined. --Kevin Murray 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it make sense or help to simply apply the notability standards to events, as well as people? As in... someone could have a possible article at Their Name, assuming they are covered by multiple non-trivial sources. For what are they covered, though, becomes the question. If the specific events and facets of their lives are covered by multiple non-trivial sources, would that be sufficient? Perhaps such as: John Phinneas Smith was a truck driver. Not notable for that, but if 4-5 news sources all covered his truck driving, well, he's a notable (and at least for a time) famous truck driver. If he allegedly happened to rear end a small Volvo while driving, causing it to explode, but it was only covered in a lone news source (or repeated from the one--such as a Reuters story being copied all over the world), the Volvo Destruction would not be notable. However, if multiple sources covered the event/action/thing as well as the person, then the person would be notable. Would that be a good bar to set? It would certainly seem to separate the famous from the notable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Notability, in this context, is not the same thing as "fame". mike4ty4 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does notability degrade? 

message: As an end-user, Wikipedia is my first line to answer the question, "Who, what is _____".
Isn't this search evidence of notability?   If I am curious about the topic, surely others are or will be.
I was driven to write this suggestion after encountering several topics that were deliberately removed or marked for deletion.  Somebody has information to share about a topic, someone else like me wants to find out about it, but somebody else judges it not notable.   
When it comes to skyscrapers or defunct companies, things that someone will want to learn about, things that someone cares enough to start an topic for, does it really hurt to have an article about it in Wikipedia?  It's the user-centered mentality.
Shouldn't the standard for exclusion be MUCH higher than the standard for inclusion?  When in doubt, why not err on the side of keeping the article?  
Finally, how about considering demand for the information as a measure of notability?  How about looking at a topic's Wikipedia search history stats, or even public keyword stats?  (For example Digimarc is flagged for deletion, but Overture says that 400 people on the planet searched for it in one month.)
(I hope this is the right place for this.  Please cut this noob some slack in any case.) 71.141.112.200 06:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A concern is that your idea is the thin end of the wedge in accepting all sorts of rubbish/opinion/trivia.  See Wikipedia:No Original Research.  --SmokeyJoe 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated. I concur. --Coolcaesar 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loosen up a bit?