Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 20

message: Gama Prasad Agarwalla (1925-1989),was the producer of the film Assamese film "Piyali Phukan" which has the distinction of being the first Assamese film to bag a National Award i.e Certificate of Merit in the year  1955 by the Film Division under the Government of India. 
Gama Prasad Agarwalla was born in Tezpur, Assam in 1925. He was a renowned name in the world of regional cinema in Assam as well as in India. He took film making as a hobby and was deeply involved in all his film projects. He setup Rup Jyoti Productions which was a production house for Assamese films and Rup Roshni Distributors which was a Distribution house for  both Assamese and Hindi film. His efforts to bring Assamese cinema on a National stage were recognized when the Government of India  awarded the film Piyoli Phukan with the Certificate of Merit in 1955. He was also awarded and honoured by the Government of Assam for his contribution to Assamese Cinema in the year 1988. 
He produced or financed many Assamese films viz. Era Bator Sur, Puwati Nikhar Swopun etc. He also opened up many cinema halls in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam like Kamala Talkies Dhekiajuli, Kamala Talkies, Rangapara, Ganesh Talkies, Kharupetia. He was married to Bhanwri Devi.  He was very popular among the residents of his home town, Tezpur in Assam. He died in 1989.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agarwalaav (talk • contribs) 10:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gama Prasad Agarwalla 

message: There are a few episodes of Timothy Goes to School tagged with Template:Notability. I'd put them all up for deletion, but doesn't there have to be a deletion review before mass-AFDing stuff like this? --Montchav (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Timothy Goes to School]] 

message: What articles or article types are exempt from falling under Wikipedia:Notability?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not exemptions, it's just that certain properties result in a default assumption of notability.  For example, most geographic locations are assumed to be notable even if there isn't a specific source provided, since it's assumed the location will be covered by secondary sources like maps, government documents, local papers, etc.  "List of TopicX" articles typically are viewed as sub-articles of TopicX - if TopicX is notable, the associated List article will be assumed to be notable too. Torc2 (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Subjects that are unlikely to be pushed by vested interests are generally unaffected by WP:N.  Such subjects tend to be from the natural world or our distant history.  Recent human creations, such as commercial products or theories need to demonstrate interest beyond that of the author or other beneficiaries.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There's certainly nothing stopping someone here from suggesting we add a Notability#Geographic section.  It's likely that it's just not important enough for any warring over it.  Perhaps THOR could be more specific in why he came here to ask his question?  I'm sure there is a specific article he has in mind. Wjhonson (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I was spurred to ask from a specific article, it's something I've run across before and should have asked before this point.If articles which have no evidence of notability are combined in a composite article (a list of, or similar), is the latter article then exempt from qualifying under WP:N?  Frequently in article deletion discussions people !vote to merge into a "list of" or similar; but if the single article is not notable under Wikipedia standards, how does a collection of non-notable information then meet that same standard?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does't.  But we are a discursive democracy not a bureaucracy.  Policy can change, in its details, and consensus can change.  So after the great merge, you could then have a discussion on its talk page about possibly deleting it !  That's the nature of wikisociety.Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not advocating the deletion of a given article at this juncture, but am tagging one with .  I was rebuffed (read: reverted) though, and informed that "Such lists are the compromise to having scads of individual pages. Each entity on the list may not meet WP:N, but collectively they do".  Is this standard/consensus valid?  Does a collection of non-notable subjects build up enough notability-mass to reach criticality and then make the collection of them notable?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why assume that a whole cannot be more notable than the sum of its parts?  Individual songs aren't typically notable, but albums typically are. Torc2 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But we don't take individual non-notable song articles and consolidate them into a single article List of songs from This Album.  Whereas the album article itself (This Album) is notable on its own, and duly lists its contents.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same principle, just done in a different order.  Parts that are individually not notable very well might be notable as a collection.  Torc2 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I'm not saying they can't be, but don't they still need evidence of that under Wikipedia:Notability?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be that the belief is that lacking further evidence, the group topic is by default notable while the individual topic by default isn't.  That's not saying that evidence isn't necessary, just that there is some inconsistency with the way notability is handled, and the assumptions of notability might change between the two topics.  Such is the case with songs vs. albums and (currently) episodes vs. series.  The default assumption is that a song isn't individually notable unless and has to prove it is, yet an album by a notable group is assumed notable and simply doesn't list sources unless someone really makes an effort to show it's not. Torc2 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I didn't want to bring up the article specifically (and was rather hoping nobody would dig through my contribs to find it) because I don't want to "be bringing in reinforcements to prove my point"; I just wanted some understanding or agreement before I pressed my point again.I came across an AfD that was discussing an article lacking notability.  The lack of notability wasn't denied or refuted (that I recall); but the majority of people were arguing to merge the content into the article Minor characters in CSI: Miami.  I started thinking that the latter article was effectively a dumping ground for a collection of non-notable articles; and, in fact, couldn't find any evidence of notability or reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia.  So I tagged it with  and .   quickly removed the notability tagging saying (as above): "Removing notability tag. Such lists are the compromise to having scads of individual pages. Each entity on the list may not meet WP:N, but collectively they do, at least for well-known shows."  Since I wasn't aware of a point of criticality  whereupon non-notable articles massed together became spontaneously notable w/o meeting the requirements of this guideline, I brought it here before pushing further.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such lists which combine non-notable elements particularly for fictional works are generally acceptable, assuming that they are approached in the summary style method of breaking out discussion from notable topics.  Now, arguably, that information along with List of CSI: Miami characters and most of the major characters with individual, non-notable articles (Horatio Caine) can be merged further into a single article to support CSI: Miami alone.  (Some of this is what is discussed at WP:FICT).  --MASEM 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *WP:NNC might also be appropriate in this discussion. Torc2 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: WikiFur. --No signature  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.228.166 (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability exceptions? 

message: Hi, I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but it seems to me that since we have a template for AfD, why not create a template that users can put into a discussion page that would cover the following:
"Presumed" 
"Significant coverage" 
"Reliable"  
"Sources"
This way, a lot of personal attacks could be avoided in discussion pages.  Just a thought.Runnynose47 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea, but I fear such a template would result in people trying to delete pages that didn't have each section filled in.  I wouldn't be opposed to altering the  tag so that it prods the tagger to discuss what the specific shortcomings are in the talk page.  Actually, that could stand to be done for a couple of our more common tags. Torc2 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm right there with you, but have no idea about the execution.  I am fairly new, and am not sure if this is the proper forum to tout this, but it does seem that standardizing the counterpoints to AfD's would cut down on the headache factor some of the better editor seem to get arguing this and other points.Runnynose47 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for Response to Non Notable Material 

message: I really don't understand how to fill in these templates. Can you provide more info. For example, does one insert a "subject" into [expert-subject], and how do you know what subject to use? The explanations on this page are a bit cursory. In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are "these templates"? Are you referring to ? If so, the template's name is "Expert-subject" so the name never changes. Many templates like this take one or more parameters. These are fulfilled by placing a pipe ("|") followed by whatever the template parameter calls for. For this template, the parameter is the subject of the WikProject you think might best be situated to provide an expert on the subject. So say you were tagging a geology stub with this template; you can guess that there is a geology WikiProject so the template with the parameter would be . Some might not be so easy to guess they exist so you would attempt to locate a good Wikiproject candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, which lists all WikiProjects. Most template parameters are easier, usually asking for the name of the relevant article the tag is associated with, the date you are placing the template, and so on. None of this has anything much to do with notability, which is where we are, so am I completely missing the boat with regard to your question?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines 

message: The subject of notability has come up in discussing merging at Template talk:SubArticle. Input on whether a parent article can provide notability for its 'subarticles' would be appreciated. Richard001 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not issue a formal WP:RFC?  Also, the talk pages (and their archives) at WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE are full of thousands of words on this topic. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on merge discussion 

message: I think it would be worth discussing the possibility of changing non-notability deletion policies to include the step of transplanting information not suitable for wikipedia to a suitable wiki if it exists. One could argue that outright deletion is little better than book burning. . . 
I argue only for the preservation of information. . .  --Carterhawk (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and Wikias 

message: I know wikipedia is the nerd's revenge on real world. But somebody, Please! Please! be a human somebody (and not a wikipedia editor nutcase) Please! check if this so-called guideline meets the basic requirements for logical coherence? I know wikipedia is the wisdom of the crowds, but still hoping for some sanity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.31.228 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some actual point to make regarding the logical coherence of the attached page? If so, please state it. Your post has no substance and appears to be a pretextual device to spew ad hominems.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerds 

message: It has been suggested that the proposal I made here may be relevant to Notability. I would appreciate comments. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment on proposal 

message: Wikipedia:Recentism is a balance to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary and some awareness of that should inform the section. The recent link to Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time is also inappropriate as that essay confuses Verifiability with notability. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can Wikipedia:Recentism, an essay, balance Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, a guideline?  Also, I don't see how Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time is inappropriate; WP:N and WP:V work in conjunction, not independently.  I don't see anything inappropriate or misleading in that essay. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary]] 

message: I've been hearing reports from a web forum I go to, that this and certain other Wikipedia rulings often get changed by some people (for instance, certain people on many webcomics) particularly right after a failed AfD, to attempt to alter the results.  Personally, I don't care if the rules are too light, or too harsh, so long as they can be consistent, and not changed at a whim, or a grudge. It is for this reason that I move some consistently agreed upon notion of what notability be declared, after which even if it is later found too harsh, it should regardless be either sprotect or protect tagged. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding! Consistency? We can't even decide what language to write in ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Protect this Page 

message: The  tag does not work correctly on my browser. Seems to me that "CONTENT" is reserved, or mixes with the table of contents. I propose to change it to, say  if there are no objections. Oceanh (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  span tag with id="CONTENT" does not work correctly 

message: I ran across Zen Center of Syracuse and put a speedy deletion tag on it for failure to make any claims of notability.  The original creator of the article put a hangon tag on the article and claims in the article's Talk page that WikiProject Buddhism is planning on creating an article on every temple in the world.  That needs to be nipped in the bud.  Every temple in the world is no more notable than every Christian church or every mosque in the world.  Just existence isn't notability.  How do we stop this before it spreads?  Corvus cornixtalk 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does wikipedia include a directory of every place of worship.  Most people say no, wikipedia only covers things already covered.  Has anyone ever written about about every temple?  If yes, then they can write an article, and list every temple.  If no, then is someone going to do original research in assembling data on every temple?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You would probably be interested in the deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Zen_centers_in_the_United_States. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is interesting.  WP:N and WP:NOT are important constraints that keep the project focused on quality, but I am concerned by how easily newcomers content gets deleted because they haven’t done it quite right.  In this case, I can see a clear example of content development that needs guidance, not deletion.  I support the guideline/policy, but not the practice that violation requires deletion.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every Buddhist temple in the world? 

message: Following the publication of a story about Wikipedia in today's issue of The Economist, a discussion started on the English language Wikipedia mailing list about notability. One reply said "We don't _need_ notability, or anything like it. Our other existing 
policies would suffice to keep the actual "crap" out." I think it would be constructive for interested editors to discuss here the merits or otherwise of this  assertion, and to gauge if there is any consensus to either upgrade the concept of notability into actual policy, or to replace it with some other subjective measure. Catchpole (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is a not very meaningful concept, and all the definitions reduce to   "what should be in the encyclopedia." what we need to discuss is not how to word a notability guideline, but rather the various views of what should be in the encyclopedia. But the reason we have avoided doing this is that there is really not the least consensus here, and it has always seemed more practical to go on with pretending that the fundamental differences separating us did not really exists, or could be accommodated by clever wording. so before  deciding to expose the lack of agreement, be careful! It can not be predicted where this will end. It could possibly end in the conclusion we do not have enough agreement to have a common project. DGG (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit cynical? Possibly true.  DGG, what do you think should be done with WP:N?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "Importance" is a subjective measure; "presence of coverage in reliable sources" is (mostly) not. The fact that the term "notability" is misused in deletion discussions is not a fault of the concept itself, but rather of individual users. Black Falcon (Talk) 08:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Presence of coverage in reliable sources" is also subjective - what is a reliable source? What is coverage?  Pretending it is not is in my opinion contributing to the misuse in AFD and other venues. Catchpole (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Coverage" can be problematic in many situations... there was a discussion at the radio project a while back regarding notability for individual stations. One real issue is the fact that, while a station is in all likelihood notable, there is very little chance it will get much in the way of coverage. Self-promotion doesn't count, other stations won't promote their rivals, and media concentration often extends this problem across television and print sources. --Ckatzchatspy 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: One can envision Notability as an extension of verifiability (in fact, verifiability includes a small statement of notability: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.); where notability is somewhat stronger in that we just don't require sources, but sources that provide significant coverage of that work, so that we prevent a trivial reference from being the sole source for a large article on a topic.  But there is also the need for common sense here as well, which is why I feel notability should be present, but never more stronger than a guideline; the example that Ckatz provides of broadcasting stations is a case where my gut feeling, applying to all other topics we cover on WP, that these are notable despite the lack of third-party sources.  I think a lot of this recent inclusionism/deletionism has led to large amounts of wikilaywering over specific wordings of policies and guidelines, preventing people from stepping back and saying "Ok, what's the spirit of what this policies and guidelines are aiming me towards?"  That is what I see the notability guideline trying to do; it is not a smackdown for topics lacking secondary sources, but instead outlines the most generally accepted case for notability, and encourages that other cases may exist, but should always be evaluated case-by-case, allowing for flexibility if that would allow the inclusion of topics to make the encyclopedia better. So while I partially agree that WP:N could be stricken from the books, putting the weight on WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO to handle what topics are covered, I think doing so would be very harmful in the long run. --MASEM 13:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability - good or bad? 

message: Hi.
I saw this:
"However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources. "
So then this raises the question of what exactly constitutes evidence for notability. What, exactly, does that? Why no guidelines about that, just "examples"? mike4ty4 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "what exactly constitutes evidence for notability", it is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As for the footnote that you quoted, I have changed the word "information" to "coverage" -- perhaps that was the source of confusion... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so those sources would not qualify because the coverage they present is not significant, it is trivial coverage. But if it was not significant to begin with, then how could the presumption of notability that ultimately fails have been made in the first place? mike4ty4 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see now what you mean. I have reworded the footnote in an effort to separate the second sentence, regarding the significance of coverage, from the statement about an initial presumption of notability. Does that change clarify the meaning? Black Falcon (Talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What constitutes notability evidence? 

message: 'nuf said! Digital athena (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many words . . . 

message: Absent strong objections at the talk page for WP:Academics I think that it is time to merge this page into BIO.  The better parts of this process have been incorporated into BIO for some time and this is now just a redundant page.  Perhaps further ideas in clarification of BIO could be included in an essay.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there has been considerable discussion on that page, some of it possibly classifiable as "strong opposition". Those interested who have not yet commented are encouraged to read the arguments on both sides and join the discussion. DGG (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to affect the merger of Academics with BIO 

message: One of the bullets under General notability guidelines begins "'sources,' defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources...." I don't know what that means. Also, refuse recognize a guideline that purports to define anything for all of Wikipedia. (Yes, that means that I find that so arrogant that I do not recognize this guideline at all.) --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What that means is to demonstrate notability you need sources that are published by a third party that has an editorial board and a reputation for fact-checking.  There are other kinds of sources, such as official documents, (sometimes)self-published material, fiction, which we can cite in articles but they don't give the subject a claim to notability.  See WP:PSTS.  Though I would like to argue that tertiary sources, such as textbooks, atlases, and other encyclopedias, are another possible way to argue notability, and because there is a debate over the definition of "secondary source" perhaps this guideline should use a different wording. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest avoiding the phrase "third party" at all costs. A reputation for independence and fair play is much more important than the complex web of corporate ownership and government oversight that can make it a major reasearch project to decide who is, or isn't, a third party. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not a third-party (independent source), they would rarely (at best) have a "reputation for independence", no? Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrogant definition 

message: I have been giving a lot of thought and review to the subject of WP:Notability (WP:N) and come to a rather radical new perspective on the subject: "Notability may need to be defined and/or qualified, at least to some degree, by the informational needs of the readers." 
In trying to find solutions to my issue of WP:N versus details for subjective belief systems (see the section above) I perused a lot of the WP internal policies, guidelines, discussions, memoranda and essays on content requirements. In the process I noticed that many of the editors here may have developed a mild case of IvoryTower-itis -- that is they appear to have developed a tendency to forget about the end-users of their research efforts. It may sound cold considering that every editor here is a human being (if you ignore the bots) but I begin to wonder if we haven't forgotten about the people side of the equation -- "people" in this case refering to those non-editor users who come to Wikipedia to simply read the information collected here.
This is not a rant or flame, merely an observation and my admittedly subjective interpretation. To test if this interpretation is accurate I propose the following question: When was the last time you asked yourself: "Why do people come to Wikipedia?" 
I remember reading somewhere in those guidelines and policies that when trying to determine if an article is appropriate for creation at WP we should think about the question "Would you find this article in a printed encyclopedia?" (link needed). Thinking about that question led me to wonder about matters like "How does a print encyclopedia decide what to include/exclude?" and "Why do people use encyclopedias (print or otherwise)?"
I would be curious to hear what your answers are to the above questions but since this is the WP:N talkpage let me stay on topic and bring it into focus with the following question:
Can WP:Notability be qualified in terms of what people come to Wikipedia looking for?
For example: If 5,000 people each month type in the same search term and find "No page with that title exists", should WP add a page to answer the people's need/desire for information even if it does not meet typical WP:N criteria?     Low Sea (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not so much, "Why do people come to Wikipedia?", but "What and how much reliable information can Wikipedia offer to its readers?", and "What should be done when (almost) no reliable information exists?" E.g compare Mythology_of_Lost#The_Monster (which still has a bit too much of OR/PLOT) with http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/The_Monster (don't forget to check out the theory tab). Clearly, everyone wants to read up on what the Monster of Lost is all about, but that doesn't mean that wikipedia can and (should) cover all the speculation in detail. So I'd answer your last question with no, it is just a good approximation for a limit when reliable sources become scarce. I am sure the notability of non-fiction can be argued in a similar way. – sgeureka t•c 08:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would consider this answered by saying that we would like WP to be the first, but definitely not the last, place that people come for information.  By visiting WP, readers should learn a skin-deep level about a topic, and further information should be given in the numerous sources that are required by verifiability, with the emphasis on secondary sources as we cannot assume the reader is 100% familiar with the topic that solely primary sources will be that useful; thus the need for analysis and commentary provided in secondary ones.  We balance this against WP:IINFO, because while we can provide a lot of skin-deep info, we should not attempt to fully describe every aspect of the topic and remove the necessity of using those additional sources.  Mind you, there are people that have come to expect that "WP is cataloguing the entire compendium of human knowledge" which is of course not a goal of an encyclopedia, so we have to be aware there are reader misconceptions on the project. --MASEM 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement with those above, the answer is simple: People come here for information, for knowledge, but most apply no discrimination when they use those words when railing against deletion on whatever basis, be it notability or otherwise. We hear unparsed mantras: "who does it harm to keep this information"; "isn't Wikipedia supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge"; "all information someone bothered to type should be retained" and a million variations. There is no filtering going on through the lens of what "encyclopedia" should and must mean even if these people know in theory that Wikipedia is something other than a blog or free for all site. The product we must strive for is reliable information and actual knowledge while maintaining ourselves as a tertiary source. Without reliable sourcing this is not what our readers get, though they often don't and won't ever know it. Yet, I have never once sourced an unsourced but detailed article, or seen it done by others, where it was not found that there existed entirely incorrect information. So we are attempting to give the reader what they come here for, even if it is in spite of themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that "informational needs of readers" is an improper criterion. First, there's hardly any objective criterion for that, anything you read about it is highly subjective. (Or do you really want to carry out a proper market research on Wikipedia reader's needs?) Second, our aim is not to fulfill "all informational needs" that readers might have. For example, readers might well need information from a phone book. While online phone books exist, we're not one, and cannot reasonably be. Readers might want to find gossip and rumour about celebrities. While there are websites where they find it, it's not what an encyclopaedia is for. Readers might want to find their classmates of old... etc. All in all, we're not the internet at large. Wikipedia has a limited scope, and we need a limited scope to reasonably maintain the site. Interestingly, hardly anyone dares to define that scope precisely. But roughly, the consensus seems to be that Wikipedia should contain verifiable facts about notable topics from the real world. The WP:N guideline may be vague at times, but it's the best consensus we currently have. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do people come to Wikipedia ? 

message: Should Wikipedia articles about celebrities, etc. mention siblings, or no? I'm wondering as some articles mention certain celebrities having sisters/brothers while others don't mention about them. --72.230.46.168 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability only pertains to article topics, not content. If the content is relevant to the subject, it should be included, weight and verifiability permitting. Regards, Skomorokh 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles about celebrities, etc. should mention siblings, etc, only if independent secondary sources about the celebrity have previously mentioned siblings.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are siblings notable enough for inclusion on an article? 

message: It's a ridiculous policy meant to keep people from making articles about their brothers and classmates, but come up with something addressing that issue that isn't a cop-out.  The criteria for notability are too subjective, and frankly notability would limit the encyclopedia to about 1000 articles, under any reasonable interpretation of notability.  The only reason I came by the notability page is because I had visited maybe the third or fourth article in a month where there was a debate about the "notability" of the article in question.  Nevertheless, the articles in question provided valuable information to me.  So let's leave the calls for what is notable to the person USING wikipedia and actually looking for the information.  One man's notable is another man's junk. 24.182.229.4 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of it 

message: :NOTE:' I put the break in here just before the most recent comment (below) because erachima's point really is separate from the various explanations provided above. I am responding below. -- Low Sea
"Key difference"? Wait, what? Verifiability and notability have no significant relationship in the first place. There is a small correlation between them in that things about which there is no verifiable information cannot be significant, but that's not really related to the principle of either rule. The notability guidelines are here because, even after limiting ourselves to knowledge that is in some way or another encyclopedic (e.g. not advertisements, directory entries, etc.), we still cannot have an infinitely broad focus or we could get nothing done. By defining only certain things as notable, we can work more effectively and better serve our readers (which is the main reason we're here, of course). They help support other things as well, such keeping out spam and nonsense, but those aren't the primary reason. --erachima formerly tjstrf 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: break 1

message: Biographicon : crowd-sourcing non-notables. 
There should be a pleasant, courteous, automatic way to tell users who create non-notable biographies that there are other appropriate forums for their work. Wikipedia is not the only game in town. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally tell people that when we're in the middle of deleting their non-notable biographies on AfD. Or if it's a speedy, after the fact. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: very interesting . they seem to be using our material without including the licensing, and I can find no licensing statementat the site about their own policy.DGG (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographicon: crowd-sourcing non-notables 

message: The whole issue of "Notability" has to be very narrowly intersrted. People use encyclopedias for terms that run into but can not get much reliable information orgenized in one place. Therefor Notability does not be streached - other wise why need an encyclopdia at all.... Zeq (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It's hard to decide though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Do not know if this is the right place. However, the power of an editor to decide about notability of an article must come with full disclosure to avoid conflict of interest.  They must not hide behind nicknames. Here is a press release 
--76.185.167.132 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Said by an editor from an IP, it should be noted. It is the wrong place. Also, frankly, requirement of full disclosure is explicitly contrary to the rules of wikipedia. Without knowing the exact title of the article deleted, I can't myself know what content there was in it. However, all articles must meet the standards of WP:NOTABILITY. If the article in question did not specifically indicate where the subject has been officially discussed in a non-trivial way by an independent, reliable source, then it can and should be deleted, as per WP:NOT. Also, having read the frankly irresponsible and clearly one-sided press release linked to, I personally consider that statement, well, contemptible. There is a place where articles which have been nominated for deletion can be proposed to be recreated, at WP:DRV. I suggest that any parties interested in trying to restore the content go there to appeal the decision. However, if the article did not assert how the subject was notable as per the above linked-to guideline, I wouldn't expect much. We are dependent on the existence of independent secondary sources to establish the notability and trustworthiness of most articles. If this one didn't have them, I wouldn't expect it to be restored, although it could be recreated later if such notability were established. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion log entry for the article in question is here.  The press release linked above seems to be written based on an assumption that Wikipedia's entries are tantamount to advertising, which they are not (by policy, see WP:NOT#ADVERTISING).  Wikipedia is certainly more likely to have an article about a large company than a small company - but only because of the relative likelihood of the existence of significant, independent sources of information about large vs. small companies. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do encyclopedias are for ?