Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 3

message: Hi.
I just noticed this:
"Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to remain on Wikipedia. This is a necessary result of Wikipedia being a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. "
This would seem to suggest that "notability" as involving something greater than simple verifiability & neutrality would be unnecessary. In this case it seems that if something is verifiable, with reliable sources backing it up, it should be allowed without any extra "notability" baggage. 74.38.32.128 05:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the two other words in that sentence, neutral and encyclopedia. Look at the Rationale on the page for more explanation. —Centrx→talk • 06:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, with regard to verifiability specifically: while an article having reliable sources would satisfy notability in that respect, it does not mean that an article without such sources is not notable. In that case, notability is useful to decide whether we will suppose that sources can reasonably be found; in the absence of having several sources, verifiability doesn't help in deciding whether there will be several sources. —Centrx→talk • 06:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notability is a shorthand term to describe a subject which is of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.  Internet memes often fail here because all the coverage is of the class "look at this kewl site" rather than any dispassionate documentation of the subject. Guy 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be kept, depending on the quality of the sources. Well-sourced, high-quality articles are never or almost never deleted. Also, if there are several independent high-reliability sources on a topic, then it would just naturally satisfy other notability criteria. Neutrality and encyclopedic relevance are part of evaluating whether a source is reliable. The same thing happens when looking it from other angles. Naturally, if a topic is a traditional encyclopedia topic there will be many reliable sources about it and neutral editors. Naturally, if a topic has many neutral interested editors, there will be reliable sources about it which they will work to find and the topic must be non-trivial. They are complementary and intrinsically related to each other. —Centrx→talk • 06:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there is a distinction between a common, relaxed meaning of "verifiable" and a meaning that requires several independent, secondary reputable and reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 06:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *In many cases "fifteen minutes of fame" does not equate to verifiability. See also User:Uncle G/On notability for some opinions on the matter. >Radiant< 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: **Yes, "human interest" fluff pieces that are not well-checked for accuracy in the first place and then copied by other news organizations are not highly reliable, and encyclopedic subjects must be verifiable over time, not just for the brief moment. —Centrx→talk • 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So then why not just define notability to mean something has multiple, independent, peer-reviewed, reliable sources to back it up? 74.38.32.128 06:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Because not everybody agrees to that definition, and because "independent" and "reliable" are also terms that do not have a definition that is universally agreed upon. >Radiant< 08:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what kind of arguments have been presented against/for it, anyway? Also, the terms "independent" & "reliable" also are deserving of rigorous definition. From what I've seen, this "notability" thing seems tied intimately to core policy -- neutral point of view (the whole "undue weight" thing? I still don't quite understand this yet -- why exactly is an article on a "tiny" minority view intrinsically biased? Please provide some answers to this!), verifiability (so there's enough sources to write a verifiable article?), and no original research ("original" research that wasn't or did not pass a rigorous peer review & get published in a journal might have had a problem with it of some sort that would make it not "notable" enough), and I think therefore that eventually it should become an official policy and therefore we need a rigorous definition. 70.101.144.160 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, any response??? 70.101.144.160 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Many questions. The relationship with NPOV is not so much undue weight, though that could be related, but that you need to have people interested in editing the article. If I see a mediocre aggrandizing article that has not been improved or had any substantial editing since it was created a year ago, it is probably not notable. It was created by a partisan or fan with some flowery wording and then no one else was interested in it since then. It looks like some of these other questions are already answered, either elsewhere on this talk page or on the main page; if not, ask something more specific (in a new section; comments in old sections are easily missed and old sections will be archived sooner). —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Also, it means more than just having reliable sources. Rather than deleting all articles that do not currently have perfect sourcing, we keep or delete them based on notability. That is, we keep them if we have other reason to believe that several excellent sources do exist and that there will be someone interested in finding them, despite those sources being in less than perfect supply currently. —Centrx→talk • 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... 

message: I started a *very* rough draft of a personal essay on notability here that might be of interest to some that watch this talk page. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal essay 

message: Hi.
One thing I seem to have noticed here is that this "notability" thing is a criterion in itself that must be satisified beyond just verifiability, neutral point-of-view, etc. (as I believe it is entirely possible to have a verifiable, neutral article about some "non-notable" (according to some people's ideas of what that means) subjects.) The common argument is that the thing must be "encyclopedic". But what does that mean?
BTW, I just had this idea for an interesting "wikixperiment": set up a wiki site that is nothing but a place where everyone can put whatever the frigg they want in it, provided it is not illegal, and see just what accumulates.  70.101.144.160 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the links. —Centrx→talk • 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Encyclopedic" content 

message: Hi.
How does this "notability" thing relate to the neutral point of view policy, as it says in the introduction that notabitiy is required in order for Wikipedia to be a "neutral, verifiable encyclopedia"? 70.101.144.160 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Rationale section. Do you think it needs more explanation? —Centrx→talk • 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess not. 70.101.144.160 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability & NPOV 

message: Hi.
I've noticed something: Is this "notability" thing a definite criterion in addition to WP:NOT, WP:V, etc., or is it used when verifiability, neutrality, etc. are difficult to determine? Ie. would a well-sourced article (if it was possible) on something somebody considers "non-notable" (which seems to be foggy) be slated for deletion? 70.101.144.160 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - if reliable sources mention something trivial in passing, it could still be deleted for non-notability. Note, however, that if several reliable sources write non-trivial articles specifically about something, that generally makes it notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, because there wouldn't be enough reliable information there to produce a WP page, whereas if there are long articles, then there would be? 70.101.144.160 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be difficult, if not impossible, to think of a topic that is indeed the subject of multiple independent highly reliable sources yet not notable, but for the merely a few moderately reliable sources that are acceptable for encyclopedic topics before their articles are improved, it is reasonable to ask, for one, whether the many highly reliable sources exist at all or will ever be found. —Centrx→talk • 04:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, if an article meets the main content policies superbly, it is hard to see how that could happen if the topic were not notable, so there would not be a conflict. Also, in practice, excellent articles don't get deleted for any reason. —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So then why even bother with "notability" anyway? To me, "well-verifiable and well-sourced" is a good enough criterion for inclusion. But in this seeming "impossible" situation, would "notability" override the rest? I would say no, no, no. 70.101.144.160 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles are not well-sourced. If there is currently insufficient evidence that an article meets the other content policies well, we are left to look at notability. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so then if the "notability" "policy" did not exist, then such articles might get deleted even if their subjects _were_ notable because there weren't enough sources. So the "notability" thing might actually allow for _more_ articles to be included, not less, as if it was just verifiability & reliable sources. 70.101.144.160 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, or alternatively we would have hundreds of thousands of aggrandizing articles about best friends and pseudo-advertisements. Without notability, we would either need to delete all unsourced or non-strongly sourced articles (90% of the articles, depending on how strict), decimating the idea that Wikipedia articles can be works in progress, or alternatively Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia and would become a Myspace-like social networking site and business/advertising directory. —Centrx→talk • 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And WP:NOT a directory. OK. 70.101.144.160 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability as definite criterion? 

message: On New Article Patrol, I'm currently noticing a lot of new articles coming in about soccer.  Football clubs, individual athletes, etc.  Since I'm not a soccer fan, I've mostly been passing these through as I have no idea how to judge whether a particular club is "notable" or not.  Or should I start getting tougher on articles that don't seem to provide a lot of sources?  Are there any guidelines for notability on sports figures and teams? --Elonka 02:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For borderline or uncertain cases, I would leave them be, or put a Notability or Importance tag on. If no one adds sources or improves the article it will eventually be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 03:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every case is particular but generally speaking, even fairly small football clubs have been the subject of enough third-party work to build a reasonnably sourced article. As for individual athletes, the notability guidelines should be the norm. If you feel like you don't know enough to pass judgment, then just let other editors do it. There are typically many users simultaneously doing some patrolling and someone else will handle the subjects you don't feel competent enough to tag. Pascal.Tesson 14:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports

message: I want to know what the people that come to this talk page think. Please don't flood this header with long person opinion, I'd just like to know where people stand. Thanks! Fresheneesz 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who come to this talk page can create their own discussion sections without you trying to initiate yet another poll. —Centrx→talk • 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I disagree with it, and several others do... so I think it... shouldn't be anything. People use it regardless of status, so it should be neither an essay or guideline...-- Chris chat edits essays 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should notability be a guideline? 

message: The disagreement about formal criteria, and the variations in gut feelings, are evident from the discussion above, the archived discussion, and the many other places in WP where similar discussions have taken place. But lets look at what is actually the case:  the standard seems to be the willingness of someone to defend an article. Many articles rejected for lack of neutral sources could find them, it someone cared sufficiently. DGG 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, many people defend non-notable articles and they are still deleted. In a borderline case, someone would need to take the time to provide positive evidence about the article, but it is not difficult to establish a level of notability sufficient to keep the article and if no one thinks a subject is important enough to bother spending the trivial amount of time it would take to do that then it is probably not notable or important to be included in the encyclopedia. Keep in mind that these articles can be restored if anyone comes up with the sources. You should read the above discussion again; there are no gut feelings about it. —Centrx→talk • 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Example: I created an article on Sanford L. Gottesman.  He is an OPIC member, started the Gottesman Company (which currently does not have a Wikiepdia article), is on the Austin Chamber of Commerce, etc. and is father to Blake Gottesman.  He is easy to document with reliable sources that are not disputed in value (such as this white house press release), yet the detetion "discussion" centered on people voting that he was not notable enough for an article. This deletion had nothing to do with verifiability, only the subjective issue of notability. — Reinyday, 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article, it is two sentences long, one of them being "He is the father of Blake Gottesman...", and the only two sources were to his company website and to what was presumably a listing on the OPIC website, now deleted. The White House press release was not listed, but regardless where can we find information even about the date he was born. There is not enough information to make anything near a complete encyclopedia article on the person; all the information can be found in the OPIC article and the Blake Gottesman article, where it belongs. It can be considered to have been merged there. —Centrx→talk • 22:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinyday, notability, properly understood, is not subjective.  It means "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources."  Whether or not a source is independent of the subject is objective.  Whether or not there exists more than one source is objective.  Whether or not coverage is trivial is the only part that could remotely be called subjective, but it basically comes down to whether the subject was actually covered directly or was just mentioned incidentally in a source's coverage of something else.  Looking at the deleted article and its sources, it appears that Sanford L. Gottesman is objectively non-notable, by the clear criterion that we call "notability".  Of the two sources, one is his own company's site (not independent), and the other is a broken link. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: long-standing lack of consensus

message: I notice that a common objection to using notability as an inclusion criterion is that it's claimed to be "subjective".  In other words, a judgement of notability depends on the person making the judgement, as opposed to something objective, which can be measured the same by any measurer.
On User:Uncle G/On notability, we're provided with a definition of notability that's not very subjective at all, and I wonder how much objection to this sometime guideline we would obviate if we make it clear on this page that notability is to be a precise term with a precise definition at Wikipedia.  I would suggest Uncle G's definition, but I'm certainly open to others.  Let's make it objective, and then we can at least agree what we're talking about. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like Uncle G's definition, but really it seems the current ones follow quite well from it. In almost all cases, subjects who fail the notability criteria also don't have enough source material to write a good article about them, are writing an autobiography, or are spam for a company. I'm really not all that sorry to see any of that cruft go. The current guidelines follow logically from WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, which are all established and excellent policies. Seraphimblade 07:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability as "subjective" 

message: Don't get me wrong, I love UncleG's essay. But, unfortunately, I don't think that it represents consensus. Pascal.Tesson 14:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I wholly support UncleG's essay and have commented as such on the essay's talk page. But inclusionists like  or , I think they will be very much bothered by anything that cements the use of notability as a criterion for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these objections will be obviated somewhat by firming up the definition of "notability", seeing as one of the primary objections to it now is the claim that it's a "subjective" criterion.  If we can demonstrate that the criterion is something concrete that doesn't depend on the taste or experience of the person making the evaluation, then we can at least have a more focused discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why you're wasting your time convincing me of something I'm convinced about. All I'm saying is "merge this with UncleG's essay and you'll unleash furious edit warring" and I don't think it's worth it right now. Pascal.Tesson 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're counting heads, or !voting, or whatnot, I support merging Uncle G's essay here. "We are an encyclopedia" is a foundation issue.  "We are not a directory" is policy.  Maybe it's possible for someone to argue that "Directories fulfill NPOV/V/NOR" isn't true, but I'm not sure how. --Interiot 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the most important part to merge here is the objective defnition of "notable", just so people can, on the one hand, stop claiming that notability is too subjective to use as a criterion, and on the other hand, stop saying things like, "non-notable because I haven't heard of it".  I suspect a lot of the controversy surrounding this page would go away if we just include a firm, Wikipedia-specific definition, as we have for so many other terms like "vandalism", "verifiable", etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fairly convincing argument. But as Centrx said (kind of) let's do this baby-step by baby-step because this is likely to create mayhem. Pascal.Tesson 01:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur. The definition of "notable" is certainly the most important part of that essay, and definitely deserves a place on WP:N.    --Nehwyn 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the definition is indeed important. Centrx's argument about the non-guideline/policy/etc. tone, length, etc. does not and should not detract from merging in the heart of the proposal -- the objective definition of notability that it provides. 170.215.83.212 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've left him a note. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For my money Uncle G's essay is a masterpiece, a coherent, comprehensive and unambiguous definition of both the purpose and the diagnosis of notability.  I would merge in the sense of completely replacing the existing content! Guy (Help!) 22:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not that I entirely disagree but obviously such a radical change would first require a thorough consultation of the community. Inclusionists don't think the current guideline is a good idea and Uncle G's essay is arguably even more favorable to the use of notability as a criterion for deletion. I suggest that if we want to do that, it's important to begin by creating a proposal subpage and get input from the community. It's also important that we take our time and let ample time for people to state their case either way. I would support that kind of move but it's important to recognize that it would be a radical change and as such should not be expected to be implemented before a few weeks if not months of careful consensus building. Pascal.Tesson 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unnecessarily long, parts of it are not accurate with regard to the situation (e.g., in the Secondary criteria, it states that top 10 hits are acceptable just because "we want" to include them, even if there are no reliable sources to be had), it is not written in the proper tone, and it does not include important elements of notability that are currently on this page, such as related to merging. No one has gotten around to merging any of it yet, but some merging and improvement is definitely warranted. —Centrx→talk • 05:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the possible merge

message: Shouldn't the merge sign be at the top? As it is now one has to scroll down to the end of the infobox to start reading the text? What is the consensus? --Oden 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet Explorer 6.0 and resolution 1024*768. --Oden 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved up the merge sign one notch. --Oden 09:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the merge sign 

message: Whether the entry relating to Claud Jacob is considered notable enough by editors of Wikipedia quite frankly leaves me cold. Wikipedia contains so very many less notable entries, contains so many errors, I find this attitude high handed if not arrogant. So who are these eminent historians who would say this that or the other biography should be excluded, or indeed included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethjacob (talk • contribs) 11:25, November 11, 2006 (UTC)
:This tag does not necessarily mean that anyone has positively decided that the subject is not notable, it can very well mean that the notability of the subject is unclear based on reading the article and that more information about the person should be presented. This may warrant changing the template to be clearer on this, or perhaps Template:Importance should be reserved for this purpose? —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually deleted the tag which was unwarranted. Pascal.Tesson 21:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd say the template is pretty clear on this, but would not object to a rewording. I think , as presently worded, is better than , since the latter does not link to the subject-specific guidelines and the former does (and has a parameter to select the most appropriate one). (Radiant) 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability tag on [[Claud Jacob]]

message: I think it should be mentioned that the way some people use "non-notable" encompasses "not important" and "not significant".  This is only hinted at in the first sentence.  The big problem is that "non-notable" can be interpreted as "not famous or well known" - plenty of things are not well known but still appropriate for an encyclopedia.  That sense is obviously not what is being meant in this article, but in the midst of discussions for newer users, either meaning can produce sensical but different context (i.e. "delete, not well known" and "delete, not a signficant topic" can both make sense to a new user).  (I personally dislike having to look at the word and constantly remind myself which meaning is being used - that ambiguity makes it too susceptible to accidental equivocation - but I missed the whole thing with the failed proposal.) —AySz88\^-^ 08:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording notice 

message: FYI: user  has again deleted the guideline tag with the edit summary "not a guideline, never will be". I have reverted the change and left a message on his talk page. Pascal.Tesson 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on his editing history it looks like he is annoyed at a certain article being up for deletion, and also made a bogus change to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Not bringing an issue up on the talk page, and using an edit summary like "not a guideline, never will be" is clearly not someone open to discussion or compromise. —Centrx→talk • 21:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of what you think about his edits, using Javascript to revert such edits is frowned upon.  JYolkowski // talk 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All apologies, I did not know it was. But then again, why is it frowned upon? I mean this is a pretty clear cut case of a careless edit that should have been brought up first on the talk page. And what's the use of a Javascript tool that you can't use? Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Automated reverts should not be used for cases that warrant a proper edit summary; vandalism is the most common situation where that is the case. This does look like a case where a user was blowing off steam, not trying to be productive, and is never going to return anyway; if they do, they can see this discussion here. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my thoughts exactly. I included a note in the talk page at the same time to explain it more carefully and left a message on his talk page. So I think I can get away with a little Javascipt here... Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another challenge to the guideline status