Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 15

message: Wikipedia activism
I think she means Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm not sure why we need an external site as a reminder. :-P
--Kim Bruning 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, then, you should write an article about this. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh? Even more articles? This isn't enough of a wake-up call already? --Kim Bruning 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And perhaps she is simply mistaken, and was the Sonja Green entry redirected because it was a copyvio,  (older versions were copyvios as well, see the history), while Austin Grossman, as written, had nothing to do with how she describes it ("it contained a fairly complete list of everything he'd written"? Not in the versions I have seen). This article is not a reminder that Wikipedia is not paper, but that anyone can write anything on his website without it being very correct. These articles were deleted because one was a copyvio, and the other made no claims to notability at all. Going back to sleep now... Fram 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks dude. :-) --Kim Bruning 10:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a thread on her article at User_talk:AnnaleeNewitz. -- Jreferee 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia activism" 

message: Ordinary meanings of notable include three things: noteworthy, luminaries, and celebrated. See Googled definition Wikipedia has chosen noteworthy over celebrated. Should the guideline say "A topic is presumed to meet the Wikipedia notable guideline" instead of "A topic is presumed to be notable". The first wording ties the issue to Wikipeida's criteria whereas the second wording seems to allow the term to mean any one of noteworthy, luminaries, and celebrated -- whatever the editor wants. Further, on a similar note, I think we might want to minimizing using the word "notable" in setting out what Wikipedia notable is to minimize using the term to define itself. -- Jreferee 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we simplify it at that point to "A topic meets the Wikipeda notability guideline..."? Capmango 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic is presumed to be notable 

message: I think it would be good to include in the notability guideline essay what the rationale is for using notability as a criterion.  I understand that we don't want Wikipedia to turn into MySpace or something, but as the "abolish it" argument above points out, we have plenty of other tools to keep that from happening.  I just want to know what the rationale is because I don't understand it. Wikipedia is where people go to find out about things that they hear of but want to know more about. If there is subject that only 10 people are ever going to search for, does that alone mean we should not have a page for that subject?  Or a subject that 1000 people are going to search for, but all of those people will be in the same town because the subject is only well known in a particular region?
Capmango 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm pretty sure that the number of people interested in searching for a given subject is a non-factor in terms of whether or not something has an article.  The only times I've seen it come up were when somebody says "But nobody will search for that redirect" which isn't exactly meaningful here.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but that seems to be implicit in the guideline that something should be notable.  I am trying to get a firm understanding on why it is important to keep non-notable information out of Wikipedia.  I do see afd arguments along the lines of "this article would only be of interest to people who are fans of such and such, or play such and such" Capmango 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, speaking for myself, I consider the arguments of the type you're talking about to be non-persuasive and borderline offensive. (And sometimes over the border).  FrozenPurpleCube 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would describe notability as requiring a holistic approach to articles; every so often you come across an article that is arguably sourced (but almost exclusively to primary sources like court records, fictional works, or official websites), arguably NPOV, and so on, yet the community decides not to have an article. Notability tries and cuts through most of this "arguably meets policy" crap by saying "Look, we need good sources to write a good article, and these are not good sources." Nifboy 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to me like a rationale for WP:V, not WP:N. Capmango 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability just says, if you can cite it, it's in. "Nathan Nathaniel is a 27-year-old British construction worker who was featured in (insert human interest story here) (cite said human interest story)." It's verifiable, but it's not notable. Nifboy 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been debated as a proposed guideline for some time now.  Two editors now propose that it be adopted as a guideline since there has been no discussion pro or con for some time.  This seems to be reverse logic to me, but I'm tired of fighting that fight.  I suggest that anyone with an interest visit that discussion ASAP.  --Kevin Murray 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision on [[Wikipedia:Notability (films)]] 

message: At this AFD post, the editor writes, The notability guideline says that if a subject has multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources than it is presumed to be notable. It does not say that if failing one of the above then non notability is to be assumed. 
My thinking was that the "presumed to be notable" language meant that, even if a subject has multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources, it still is possible that it is not Wikipedia notable.  The above quote seems to say that even if a subject does not have multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources, it still might be Wikipedia notable. Perhaps the guideline should have some clarafication as to what "presumed to be notable" means in the context of this guideline. -- Jreferee 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood the second reading of this, i.e. notability should only even be up for debate if the subject lacks mulitple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources; in that case we argue notability on other grounds.  Of course, "reliable," "independent," and "non-trivial" are all subjective terms so we just end up arguing the notability indirectly by debating the sources. Capmango 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The way I read it, both are right.  The "presumed to be notable" language says who has the burden of proof (like a legal presumption).  If a subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, a prima facie case has been made that the subject deserves a stand-alone article on Wikipedia.  If an article's subject lacks such coverage, its proponents bear a heavy burden of showing why the subject is nonetheless notable.  If the article's subject does have such coverage, its opponents would bear the burden of showing why a stand-alone article is not in the best interests of Wikipedia (for example, including the subject as a section of a broader article may make practical sense in some cases). PubliusFL 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumed to be notable 

message: As I become more involved in AfDs, I'm finding articles on a Linux version fairly frequent. Perhaps something should be established on the notability of Linux versions as it is open source and many exist. Perhaps this guideline should apply to all open source items, such as wikis (Obviously we aren't going to have an article on every wiki). How would this be done? Redian  (Talk)  04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A linux guideline 

message: I have removed a question I originally posted here. It was intended to inform myself by touching base with some regulars here. I can't do it when someone else insists to interfere in blatant disrespect of my requests. AvB ÷ talk 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add more clarity, the content in question reads "A small group called National Association for Chiropractic Medicine is an attempt to organize reform-minded chiropractors." Aside from the organization's one-page website, there is no current sources discussing this organization (what they do, who they represent). Perhaps "past-tense" phrasing would be more apropos? Regardless, I thought WP:N doesn't limit the content of an article. Perhaps this request is misplaced here. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedic notability doesn't expire just because the sources are old. If the organization in question was verifiably noted in a significant way in publications then it is still notable.  Now that being said, that doesn't mean the organization is active, nor does it mean that it is necessarily worth mentioning in a particular article.  It could well be that the organization in question isn't actually active any longer and that it's not really worth mentioning in this specific article.  Past notability doesn't always imply current day relevance to the topic, and in order to keep articles focussed it might be useful to periodically trim out information that isn't likely to be useful to a solid enyclopedic discussion.  (I'm just talking in general terms here - I have no comment on the particular article in question one way or another.) Dugwiki 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, Dugwiki. Much appreciated! -- Levine2112 discuss 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dugwiki. Eminent observations along the lines of something I would have written myself in response to the above (see e.g. ). Am I right in inferring from your answer that you would not accept the blanket assertion that sourced information can be removed when the sources are over five years old? To me it sounds like pseudo-WP:N language. Perhaps useful to start a discussion, but useless to refute thoughtful arguments. Would it have a chance to become policy? Thanks in advance. AvB ÷ talk 08:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Levine, this was my question, as you know (diff)(diff)(diff) not intended as a WP:3O or another WP:DR process, just something to let myself be informed. As I've written before, if you change my question, I cannot use the answer because it is no longer my question. As I have repeatedly asked you to consider. And now you are thanking someone who is responding to what is essentially your question. Therefore I'm retracting this question and will use venues not open to you to allow editors I know and trust to comment. AvB ÷ talk 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a community and you were questioning a policy dispute between the two of us (and others). I was assuming that this was part of WP:DR. Thus, I wanted to be informed on this matter as well, and I wanted to be sure that whoever responded to our question would have a clear frame of reference on the matter. All I did was to provide context. I think Dugwiki's response is quite lucid, addresses both of our concerns and certainly sheds much light on our small policy dispute. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good response in a general sense. However, due to your interference it's become useless to me, as explained to you in advance. The more context, the more guarded the general responses will be, up to a point. Until one explains the whole thing with sufficient context. Although this requires lots of time from respondents, it will lead to responses geared to the specific situation. Like the one from Fyslee. AvB ÷ talk 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: First, to be clear, I do not have any hatred fror NACM. I honestly never encountered mention of them other than on Wikipedia. I believe this to be so because NACM (if it still exists at all) isn't a very notable organization. I've heard of the ACA, ICA, FSCO, WCA, ECA and even FACE, but never have I heard mention of the NACM. In terms of practice styles, I've heard of straight, mixer and minimally have heard mention of reformers (but really not much at all). So if I was the judge here, I would say that Reformers may slightly pass WP:WEIGHT, but NACM certainly doesn't. But I am not the judge. It is up to reliable sources to provide the weight needed here. Small mentions in articles from over 15 years ago hardly qualifies. My question to Fyslee is: How do you know that this organization still exists, quietly or not? How do you know it hase members, chiropractors or not? I have seen no sources presented which demonstrate this other than the old, old sources and an outdated, crude, one-page website with links to one "hotmail" based email address rather than an email address using its own web address (i.e. It doesn't look very official). So, even though I was the one who originally authored the text which you cite above (Reformers tend to share the viewpoints found in the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine), I have been persuaded that we cannot even say that as we don't have any reliable sources stating that; nor do we have any sources showing the current notability of making such a reference to the NACM. I completely understand your point of view here, but without up-to-date references, we don't know it to be true anymore or very encyclopaedic in terms of weight. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a regular contributor to the chiropractic article I also don't feel any "hatred" towards the NACM. I don't get that at all. Levine has captured my sentiments exactly. 15 years ago they were notible, now they seem like a historical footnote. Not anything from them since 1993? Hence my suggestion to place it into the Chiropractic history article. If that equals hatred in Fylsee's book, um, O.K.--Hughgr 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for the regulars here 

message: "Notability is a subjective judgement based on objective data. The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."
But it is not a purely subjective judgment, otherwise anything, including a couple of paper scraps written by who-knows-who found on the street saying "I HEART <whatever>!!!! <whatever> RULEZ!!!!!!!!" could be used as "objective evidence". There is, or at least, there must be, a constraint as to how liberal it can get -- otherwise the whole point of Notability is thwarted. mike4ty4 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability in the dictionary sense is clearly subjective.  Notability in the Wikipedia sense is based on objective evidence, and the key point in the paragraph you cite is to lay out the type of objective evidence that is required.  However, as I re-read the paragraph, I think I agree that the wording ought to be improved.--Kubigula (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like it or not there is much subjectivity in our objectivity.  There is no way around it.  So why be in denial?  --Kevin Murray 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made my peace with it :).  However, I do think the wording could be clearer to discourage ILIKEIT arguments.  I'll try to take a crack at it later today.--Kubigula (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one is better equipped to make it work.  I'm sure you will do a fine job! --Kevin Murray 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed; except that I would say notability, within Wikipedia, means coverage in reliable sources or other evidence defined in the SSGs.  I added the subjective/objective sentence as a way to tie together WP:notability and vernacular notability.  Kevin previously said I was opening a can of worms, and he was probably right - as are you.  I'll remove the can of worms/confusion magnet sentence.--Kubigula (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Anyway, magnetic worm should not be a source of confusion.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - I'm impressed you were able to pull out a link relevant to that crazy mix of metaphors.--Kubigula (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I sense that we are drifting back into an old argument over whether Notability in the Wikipedia sense is objective or subjective. I think the idea that Notability is not subjective never achieved consensus, although some argued passionately for this. The judgments over what sources are  non-trivial, reliable, relevant, etc. are subjective, so any conclusion drawn from them is ipso facto subjective. The fact that it is not purely subjective does not mean that it is purely objective either. The sentence quoted here was developed as a compromise to address these issues. I don't think it should be removed, because sweeping this under the rug only causes additional confusion. Dhaluza 12:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old disputed section of the guideline declaring that notability is objective is gone.  Whether or not one agrees that notability is subjective or objective, I think we all agree that objective evidence is required.  In other words, an editor's personal preference or interest is insufficient - there must be some reliable off-wiki validation or measure of the subject's significance.  I had thought that the deleted sentence was a good way to lead to the idea of objective evidence, but I can see how it also leads to confusion - unless one has read all the discussion that got us here.  So, I now think the guideline is more useful and less confusing without that sentence, so long as the straightforward assertion of objectivity is also gone.--Kubigula (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a ''purely'' subjective judgment... 

message: The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Schull|AfD for Kari Schull]] is attempting to overturn the "keep" decision at [deletion review Kari Schull].  This discussion is linked to 3 others the previous day, where the author of the articles is attempting to use the "keep" at Kari Schull to overturn the rejection of his other similar articles.  Interesting potential precedents for the application of BIO regarding awards, the defacto primacy of WP:N, for the reform of special case notability criteria in general, or just whether we run this project by WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review Kari Schull et al 

message: To what extent are local elections notable enough for separate articles? A discussion of a particular case involving a number of related articles has just been started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Edmonton Election Pages.  DES (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that there is already a section providing guidance on notability of politicians under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people. There is also a rejected notability proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (politicians) with discussion on its talk page which might be illuminating.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But these are pages, nort on the politicians per se, but on the electiosn themselves -- rather like scorcard or season results pages in some sports. Take a look at the pages linked on the RfC and you will see what I mean. DES (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is an Emily Litella moment; not sure how my brain read elections as politicians but..."Oh, that's quite different...never mind".--Fuhghettaboutit 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of local elections 

message: What I rather miss in the guideline is: why do we need notability?
I think: to avoid cluttering the wikipedia with ill-written articles about people's neighbours.
But why would we give our power away via the definition of: reliable sources writing about it? Most journalists turn to wikipedia if they want to know something, it's rather silly to look at the journalists to establish whether we should include anything?
For instance, deletion review of :TerrorStorm. I cannot find any video's on video.google which have over a million hits (though I know they must be out there). Isn't it a bit weird to maintain that popularity means nothing?
Wikipedia is access to knowledge. Why deny the world the combined knowledge of the many willing authors by enforcing this guideline so strict? — Xiutwel (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is the point... we are in the business of providing access to knowledge, not of providing new knowledge.  -- Visviva 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying we should do original research, I am saying we should redefine "notable". There is a sub-culture which is anti-establishment, which I have a gut feeling is "worth taking note of" but which is, necessarily, ignored by that same establishent — and Wikipedia takes the easy way out to just look at the establishment to determine notabilty. Does what I'm saying make sense to you? Within this sub-culture, some things are "notable" and others are "not" -- but wikipedia seems to dismiss the entire thing as unnotable. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, if we determine notability based upon popularity and go with all the fads and crazes, then Wikipedia will be just like that, a fad or a craze. Popularity of something flows in and out like the tide, making notability almost impossible to determine. For example, an internet video may hit the 1 million mark in number of hits, but eventually, people will stop watching that video. A city of 1 million doesn't just grow overnight; it takes hundreds of years to make. Second, as with your point of not needing notability, would you ever read an article that talks about Grandma Lucille picking up Little Blue Boy's horn? Its a fictitious story I made up, but without notability, true stories as miniscule as this will wind up here. These would just be wastes of memory that the WikiMedia Foundation has to pay for with your donations. (Also, what proof do you have that most journalists look here for information?) Finally, Wikipedia works by consensus. You can create an article, and consensus (which usually relies upon common sense) will dictate whether that article is notable or not. As with your deletion review, consensus dictated that your article was not notable; thus, it was deleted. Diez2 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's give our power away? 

message: Sorry but could you explain before you put MY PAGE UP FOR DELETION(Kevin Scarpino)Joe Momma93:  Game On 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I can't explain, I see no page by that title, nor has one ever existed (there would still be a deletion log if one had been there and since deleted). Are you sure that's the name you used for the article? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's referring to Keven Scarpino--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT 

message: My original concerns still stand (and seem to be even more endangered now):
# How do we tighten up security on lists?
# How to we remove the current responsibility for fact checking placed on the shoulders of innocent Wikipedians by idiots and vandals?
# How do we make sure that we don't waste anymore time on these matters?
We do it by ensuring that the default guideline places the burden of proof squarely on the one making the entry.
The removal of the original wording (see below) now creates an even worse situation which could create so many more and greater problems that a total ban on many lists may be the only way to prevent wasting thousands of manhours. We are dealing with public trash receptacles with large openings. We need to keep them, but put a lid on them, and only allow their opening when they are opened with a key (referenced reliable sources) that is available to anyone. Then anyone who looks at the list and sees an entry that is not accompanied with a ref can immediately delete it without having to fact check.
There are certainly lists that are exceptions to the above situation, but let's define the differences and make provisions for protecting the majority of lists which are so vulnerable.
To see what type of problem I'm talking about, take a look at Kanpur. It has lists with wikilinks to articles. It also has a list without wikilinks that is practically impossible to fact check, and is obviously a mixed bag of good and bad. -- Fyslee/talk 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this request? 

message: :Partially crossposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Inclusion in embedded lists: notability
The discussion here seems to concern stand-alone lists. Wikipedia also has scores of embedded lists that include a criterion, implicitly or explicitly, of notability. "Notable residents", "notable alumni", and "notable contributors" are typical examples. My feeling with these is that they should mostly be limited to links to existing articles because those have proven notability. Red links should be to topics that meet our criteria for notability and that "should" exist. In those instances an additional external link to a reliable source establishing notability is helpful and may prevent an otherwise obscure name from being deleted. However if an editor objects to the inclusion of a red link then the best answer is to create an article on the topic rather than to keep re-inserting a red link that goes nowhere. I suppose that on lists where notability is not even implictly one of the criteria then simply including the name without linking it would be the best approach. For example, a list of schools in a school district might list, but not link, elementary schools while red-linking high schools (assuming one believes high schools are notable while elementary schools are not).   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a practical matter I agree here. This is by far the best way to avoid continual fighting over individual edits. Telling someone to go write an article is the way. (I see that many people when deleting an article also remove the name from such lists, & I follow their example) This should be the standard definition of notable in such embedded lists. DGG 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability in embedded lists

message: :By contrast, lists should only include notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers.
This sentence is somewhat problematic.  It's true in most instances, but there are exceptions where non-notable items are appropriately listed—for example a list of the tallest buildings in a city that includes a few anonymous office blocks around the bottom.  Can anyone think of a better way to qualify this?--Pharos 06:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This line has had me thinking further on the subject, and I believe we are really dealing with two types of lists.  Please see Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Two types of lists.  Thanks.--Pharos 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is some thoughtful discussion of the issues higher up on this talk page in this section and its subsections: Lists require notable entries. Please see also the top sections of my user page: User:Timeshifter. --Timeshifter 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your deletion of long-standing content is problematic as it has been applied many times in practice, and it is under discussion above because it is too weak (not too strong). Please restore it while we discuss whether to strengthen it or leave it as it is. -- Fyslee/talk 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Practically speaking, the statement that Fuhgettaboutit removed has never been followed in practice.  I think the thing to do is to follow the language of WP:LIST, and I have added a blurb to that effect.--Kubigula (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it is only tangentially related to the subject at hand, and does not belong here. If we added redundant notes about every related thing, this guideline would become hopelessly bloated. WP:LIST can stand on its own, without being propped up here. Dhaluza 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and it's always a bit dangerous to paraphrase a guideline as that content could change.  However, I think the notability of items on a list comes up often enough that we can at least name drop it along with RS and TRIVIA.  Frankly, I think it's a more common issue than trivia.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: I didn't realize it had been actually added; thought it was under discussion. Please see what I wrote above. In short, the following is  is a non sequitur: "entries in List of minor characters in Judge Dredd must be notable." Any other minor character list results in the same absurdity. None of the minor character in Judge Dredd are notable by themselves. Similiar problems appear for other types of lists: List of Airwolf episodes (I doubt any episode has enough reliable sources significantly treating it to write a stand alone article, much less reach a notability benchmark; doesn't the proposed entry perforce mean every episode list itself must be deleted?). There are many other examples. List of Ben & Jerry's flavors? You see what I mean.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your deletion of long-standing content is problematic as it has been applied many times in practice, and it is under discussion above because it is too weak (not too strong). Please restore it while we discuss whether to strengthen it or leave it as it is. -- Fyslee/talk 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Practically speaking, the statement that Fuhgettaboutit removed has never been followed in practice.  I think the thing to do is to follow the language of WP:LIST, and I have added a blurb to that effect.--Kubigula (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it is only tangentially related to the subject at hand, and does not belong here. If we added redundant notes about every related thing, this guideline would become hopelessly bloated. WP:LIST can stand on its own, without being propped up here. Dhaluza 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and it's always a bit dangerous to paraphrase a guideline as that content could change.  However, I think the notability of items on a list comes up often enough that we can at least name drop it along with RS and TRIVIA.  Frankly, I think it's a more common issue than trivia.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists removed

message: This seems to be the only category of creative individuals missing. It would be nice to have a guideline regarding print, paint, sculpture, mixed media, and digital visual arts. William (Bill) Bean 16:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  And especially for contemporary artists, since there we have the significant issue of vanity articles.--Pharos 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Arts Notability 

message: from www.m-w.com
:reputable 
::1 : enjoying good repute : held in esteem
::2 : employed widely or sanctioned by good writers
:reliable
::1 : suitable or fit to be relied on : DEPENDABLE
::2 : giving the same result on successive trials
Regarding suitable sources for demonstrating notability, WP:N has an overemphasis on “reliable” versus “reputable”.  “Reliable” is a good quality for a primary source, whereas “reputable” is a better quality for a secondary source.  Reliability is important for verifiability, for establishing the truth of a fact.  I see WP:N as relying less on WP:V and more on WP:NOR, where a reputable source is more important than a reliable source.  Note the prominence given to reputable sources at WP:NOR.
Notability is established by commentary, or coverage, from a reputable source, such as an independently published book or a competitive newspaper.  Notability is not established by commentary, or coverage, from a non-reputable source, such as a blog, a self published book, or volunteer run student newspaper.  --SmokeyJoe 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable or Reputable 

message: The 5 pillars starts with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". It seems to me that we do not give anything like enough emphasis to this and as result keep trying to reinvent the wheel. Notability should start with the view that anything that is in a general encyclopedia, a specialized encyclopedia or an almanac could have an article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, we should be able to argue that where a topic is too new to appear in a particular encyclopedia (I'm thinking of specialist ones here) it should be notable if it meets any stated guidelines of inclusion for that encyclopedia. We may not have experts to decide inclusion of topics, but there is no reason why we should not take advantage of them in other projects. Of course, this will not answer all questions about inclusion, but it will answer a lot. Why do we not see arguments at AfD like "This topic has an article in Encyclopedia XYZ" or "This topic would meet the guidelines for inclusion in Encyclopedia XYZ, but is too recent for it to have been included there". I think something on this should be right near the top of this guideline. --Bduke 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  I daresay that anything covered by a (another) reputable encyclopaedia should be covered by wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems perfectly obvious to me as well. Unfortunately our definition of notability is still based on sourcing, and we cannot copy or even base our articles on these sources. But if someone tries to make an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument cloaked in a robe of Notability, this is a completely valid way to strip it away. Dhaluza 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree in principle but isn't this a solution in search of a problem? I'm wondering because I can't remember the last afd where this could have spoken to the issue. I would dare say that a good percentage of the articles in other encyclopediae are already represented in Wikipedia and very few have been taken to afd because most traditional encyclopedia topics are no-brainers when it comes to notability. I'm not sure of this but that's my feeling (I think it would be very interesting to actually do such a topic coverage comparison against a well known encyclopedia).--Fuhghettaboutit 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the quote I started with included "specialised encyclopedias" as well. Some of these are very specialised indeed (and certainly not well known although reputable), such as the Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry that I would use as a guide for articles, but it is far too expensive to buy and most libraries do not have it either for that reason. I do not think we cover all of the topics in specialised encyclopedias although we might cover all the topics now in Britanica. --Bduke 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember this AfD where a 19th century Encyclopedia was used to shoot down  a foolish nomination. Dhaluza 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And similarly we have been accepting publication in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as notable. We could certainly say that being the subject of an article in the Brittanica, the DONB, and similar encyclopedia is conclusive evidence for notability, and that specialized encyclopedias might be depending on the situation.  I'm not sure what other encyclopedias need to be written in as automatic--I would oppose making a long list , because then it might be implied: only these. DGG 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability as encyclopedic 

message: "The sum of all human knowledge" includes, by definition, all knowledge both notable and non-notable that our race has compiled, defined, understood, etc. Deletion of a page due to it not being notable enough is therefore contradicted by Wales' statement. Therefore, either he needs to change what he claims he wants, or the focus of the site needs to come into line with it, in turn. --Chr.K. 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that's a simplification, right? Unorganized, unfiltered, data is just noise. Knowledge is more than data. There are a few organizations that do their best to gather all the world's web pages in one form or another; one is called Google, another is called the Internet Archive, there are probably more. That's certainly part of "all human knowledge" by your definition, but not by ours: we aren't going to put every scrap into the Wikipedia, we are going to be selective. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indiscriminate information does not equate to knowledge. Moreschi  Talk 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is organize and filtered, and if it were not deleted by [...] it would be organized even more.Litch 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Chr.K.  said we should set the bar lower than "knowledge" which is what the two replies refer to. He specifically addressed "non-notable knowledge" which may seem like an oxymoron, but it does raise a valid point. What should we do with knowledge of questionable notablity? Should we delete or keep in case of reasonable doubt? Dhaluza 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We discuss it. Sometimes it turns out that the subject really is a notable and appropriate one, and we keep it. Sometimes it turns out it's not notable, and there's little or no source material available for an article, so we can't have that article. That doesn't always work (I've seen some pretty crufty, unsourceable stuff kept and some that I thought were pretty valid deleted), but I know of no better way to do it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be it wasn't knowledge of questionable notability Chr.K. was referring to, but knowledge of no notability. IvoShandor 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does The Simpsons contribute to "The sum of all human knowledge"? Notable yes, Knowledge... Probably not. Jeepday (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I rarely see notability discossed or if discussed, discussed for more than a day or two when it gets delete and then all discussion of notability is also erasedLitch 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Wales' claimed goal contradicted by this page 

message: Is there a notability guideline for software?  Corvus cornix 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFTWARE is tagged historical. — Scientizzle 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that sucks.  :)  thanks, tizzle.  Corvus cornix 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software 

message: I added an article for an exercise tool/technique (Shovelgloving) and had it deleted for lack of notability.  How do I establish notability for an exercise?  I can cite a number of bloggers that use it and an article on it at Lifehacker  but what else is needed to prove it's notability besides the fact that it's a unique form of exercise that a sizeable number of people seem to be using?  Thanks. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good place to start is Google news and Google News Archive. Most (but not all) of their sources are not self-published, and many have some form of editorial control, which is an important factor in determining a source's reliability. Feezo (Talk) 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is notability for an exercise? 

message: Who can determine whether a subject is notable? Society? Or the people who control our "respected" media? Fox_news#Controversies
I would say: society itsself determines notability, and mainstream coverage is good proof of that. So, it is a sufficient, but not a necessary prerequisite for notability.
In particular, I would say that a large number of editors involved in a deletion debate, even if they all vote delete, is a strong indication of notability.
Let's polish this guideline. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of flawed, because a large number of relatively new editors, who do not understand guidelines and policies, and are simply fans of a television show will vote "oppose". Let's look at television shows. If a show is viewed by millions, how is the "oppose" vote by a few people proof of notability? Ever hear of canvassing? Significant coverage means professionals are talking about it. The show is viewed by millions, an episode of a show is merely a small part of that. It would be like picking out a stage prop of a very notable play and saying that millions have viewed the stage prop, so we should write about it. Unless someone else has written about the stage prop, then it should really only be mentioned in the larger topic of the play itself (or in this case, the episode should be mentioned in the larger topic of the season or main article). 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community or centralized media? 

message: I've had a ~monthlong absence, and the primary notability criterion seems to be gone from this article. Have I lost my mind and it was never here, or was consensus somehow found for its removal recently? (n.b. the primary notability criterion was the one about having verifiable references in multiple non-trivial sources) A Traintalk 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed many months worth of wrangling.  The cretierion is still there, but it's now called the general notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (after edit conflict) To summarize: non-trivial was changed to "significant" (I still think it should be "substantive") and multiple was gotten rid of entirely (which I oppose). Editors railed against calling it the "primary" notability (see here, for example) and template:PNC was tfd'd.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. My heart, it breaks. Oh well, roll with the punches. Thanks for the update, guys. A Traintalk 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary notability criterion - where is it? 

message: So I've noticed a couple of MUD articles have been marked as needing more third party references in order to prove their notability.  To expect that from MUD is a wee bit absurd.  MUDs are small massively multiplayer computer games generally developed and run by very small teams of coders and builders in their free time.  Excluding MUD listing sites, where the listings are posted by players or the building teams themselves, there are no third party references that generally mention them to speak of.  Some of the largest MUDs have fan pages or references to them made outside the MUDding community, but the vast majority of MUDs have only their own main pages and a few listings on MUDding community sites. So unless we're gonna make the listings in MUDding community sites sufficient third party references, we're gonna have to just go through and clean out all the MUD articles.
-Alcon
:If what you say is correct, it seems a cleanup is needed. Fansites and self-published sources aren't reliable, nor are forums, blogs, or the like. As below, we reflect reliable sources. If no reliable source finds a MUD worth mentioning, we reflect that by not mentioning it here either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alcon, I invite you to help us out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/MU*. We need to establish which MUD community sites are reliable and try and find good sources. We also have a shortlist of MUD articles we feel have sufficiently established notability and verifiability. MarašmusïneTalk 08:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and Muds