Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 16

message: I would like to add my Dad to this list. I have just discovered Wikipedia today and dont have alot of expierance with such things. Any help I can get would be helpful. Rwaters3 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered at user's talk page. --Kevin Murray 16:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea Bronze Star List 

message: To follow up on the post on muds, the entire issue of online gaming should be examined, i.e. whether it should be included and if so, what should the notability requirements be.  I've been editing an article for an online game called Web Boxing League at which I'm a player.  Out of nowhere, without being marked for notability, it is marked for deletion.  Then comes the gang of editors saying it is not notable.  It was suggested that for it to be notable, it needs to have been reviewed by an independent online game reviewer.  By this standard, you should wipe every online game from Wikipedia (which effort I believe is already underway). There are a couple of problems with this.  First, there are not quite as many journalists running around out there to write authoritative treatises on online games as there are college professors writing arcane gobbledygook about topics of academic interest . Second, such authoritative articles are not usually particularly authoritative.
Let me quote from Wikipedia's own article on video game journalism regarding ethics:
:"Unlike linear media, getting a complete sense of a game can require far longer than the time it takes to play it from start to end. Further to this, games such as RPGs can last for hundreds of hours. Computer and video game reviewers therefore tread a fine line between producing timely copy and playing enough of a game to be able to reliably critique it.
 
Therein lies the rub. Requiring a completely independent source for an online game is to require a source that is unauthoritative almost by definition. It puts any online game in an impossible position when trying to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. I don't believe it is lawyering to interpret the phrase "trustworthy and authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" to mean one has to have in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge that can only be gained by playing.
In the article, I noted independent articles on the game by long time and successful players of the game. These authorities were pooh-poohed as not being independent, reliable or authoritative. 
I believe that there needs to be an expansion or a reinterpretation of notability guidelines addressing the video and online gaming genre to reflect that fact that the only true authorities on such games are the players themselves.  Online gaming is an important cultural phenomenon in the internet era.  To say it should not be included by default because there is no one writing peer reviewed articles on the subject is an ostrich like approach that proclaims that if it doesn't fit our guidelines for what is important, it must not be important. --Art of Pugilism 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it is difficult or impossible to find sources does not excuse one from having them. If little reliable source material exists about online games, we shouldn't have many articles about online games. We reflect reliable source coverage, we don't attempt to correct what we see as deficient by covering what they don't. If you feel there is a deficiency, write to magazines, or newspapers, or reliable game-review websites, or whatever, and tell them you want to read more in-depth coverage of online games! Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and the nature of the subject does affect the nature of the sources accepted. We seek sources where the sources are. For material that is expected to be covered in major newspapers, we rightly expect that; for material likely to be found in small town papers, but where the subject is notable none the less, we accept the papers that there are. when a field of human endeavor that is clearly both important and interesting to WPedians is covered best by nonconventional sources, we should learn to sort out the reliable sources of that nature, and then use them. sometimes, the distinctions are lear, but wherever the borders are, there will be borderline cases. It is the responsibility of those interested in games to figure out and agree on what the good sources are, and then convince the rest of us to accept them. This is not in disagreement with Seraphimblade, but as a comment and expansion.  DGG (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So baically, DGG agrees with me "nonconventional sources" such as player articles should be considered.  The problem with that is that there is an obvious bias here against nonconventional sources, so the entire issue becomes political.  The "purists" gang together and refuse to accept anything that isn't conventional and keep out articles that they don't deem "worthy".  I have proposed a new notability standard for online games, that is player articles, but no one will step up to support it. --Art of Pugilism 12:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources still must be reliable. Player reviews and the like undergo no editorial control or fact-checking, so they are in no way verifiable. On the other hand, there are several websites dedicated to reviewing games which do undergo editorial control, have non-anonymous authors, and the like. On the subject of games, those sites are a reliable source. "We will accept non-conventional sources" in some cases is not, and I can't emphasize it enough, not the same as "We'll accept just anything." Gamespot is a non-conventional but in some areas reliable source. Joe's Blog, John's Forum, or Jack's Site Where Anyone Can Post A Review are not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and Online Games 

message: Does anyone know of any past discussions centered around how we establish notability for articles that document beliefs/superstitions or topics that might be classed as paranormal or pseudoscience.
The reason I ask it that there is currently an AFD going on for an article that attempts to document the various numerological beliefs regarding the time of day 11:11.  
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 (numerology) (2nd nomination).
I'm also curious to hear fellow editors thoughts on how we might establish notability for these types of articles.
As an example that I've used before, we have a plethora of sources that establish that people have ascribed all sorts of magical qualities to cats and to black cats in particular.  As a matter of fact, Black cat discusses some of those beliefs.  One can even argue that the article would be incomplete without some discussion about those beliefs.  
But what do we do in the cases where certain beliefs/superstitions are not so well known or documented? TheRingess
:We go to our fount; has the belief, pseudoscience or superstition been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources? Off the top of my head, if a separate guideline were being written (not that I think it should be), I think I'd start with the premise that the sources must discuss the belief as a belief, not just provide an example of it in action. For example a source showing someone ascribed to the belief would not really speak to the issue, while a source discussing the existence of the belief would be on point. If it is "not so well known or documented," how can one write an encyclopedia article about it? It either can be sourced or it's unverifiable, original research.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That helps.  I guess I should have expanded what I meant "not so well know or documented" to specify beliefs that are not documented by multiple independant reliable sources.  A perfect example of a belief that is well documented is the belief that 7 is lucky.  Regarding the time mentioned above, there seems to be very few independant sources that describes what properties people ascribe to that time of day.  So the sources for the article are primarily those groups and individuals who expound those beliefs.TheRingess (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and they are RSs for the beliefs they have, though of course not for what reality actually is. But people's organized and shared hypotheses about the world, however foolish, are the proper subjects of WP articles. It really isnt necessary in an article such as this one to try to talk about the possible real-world correlates. DGG (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think these kinds of articles test the boundaries of the "significant coverage"/"non-trivial" criterion.  A phenomenon like this might be widely noted in books on numerology, etc., without anyone thinking to write a whole book, a whole chapter of a book, or a whole article in a periodical specifically about the time 11:11.  So if you have a few paragraphs specifically about the time 11:11 in a number of independent reliable sources, does that count as "significant coverage" or not? PubliusFL 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it does count (no pun intended).  True, it wouldn't make for a large article, but the article it would make would be verifiable and objective if it's based on multiple independently published sources.  And keep in mind that just because a psuedoscience probably is bogus doesn't mean that it's not worth mentioning as an topic in an encyclopedia.  You don't have to be a member of a cult, for example, to find learning about the cult's beliefs interesting or useful.  So while a Wikipedia article shouldn't claim that a clearly false scientific belief is true, if a false belief has enough public interest it is still worth noting that a non-trivial group of people believe it, explain what the belief is and rationale for why people incorrectly support it. Dugwiki 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guidelines for beliefs, psuedoscience or superstitions 

message: The reason to include this section here is to discuss the definition of "notability" for a commercial site. Is it solely based on revenue and number of years in business? The general guideline in this page pertains to the reliability of the source, but every company can provide "reliable" source of information about themselves. And "widespread coverage" for a commercial company is determined by their past advertising effort and the value of commercial products offered. Basically, why should one company be listed over another. Due to the anonymous nature, even if you own a UserID here, please do not state that your site is not notable and that one is. Provide quantifiable and measurable guidelines, or close to that would help. Your views please. -- Zragon 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability for Commercial Company 

message: I am a teacher with the Grant Joint Union High School District, and recently created an article about the California Aerospace Academy.  After creation it was quickly marked for deletion, and from Wikipedia's current policy, I can understand why, and I am not making any argument. But the issue raised a question in my head.  I have been trying to encourage our schools to teach students about how to become Wikipedia editors.  And I thought one of the best places to start would be for the students to write an article about their own school.  But with current policy, the article that a 12 year old might be bold enough to write, might be deleted under their noses.  Even if they took the time to research and cite their sources.  Due to this, I am having to reconsider how much I'm going to encourage others to become part of the wikipedia community, especially kids whose hard work, and hopefully quality work, would just be erased.  I can understand being edited and improved, but I don't like the thought that it would just be deleted.   I am very interested in the communities thoughts on this issue.--Pordaria 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that a researched and well sourced article would be deleted.  I do think that novice users could get involved in WP through other routes than article creation, however: how about researched and well-sourced editing?  Or how about a team article creation?  I will say too that articles about schools are a particular sensitivity for those who monitor new article creation, but if users create researched and well-sourced articles on notable historical or scientific topics, they will stay. UnitedStatesian 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think an exception to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines for younger users is necessary.  Consider that there are other wiki projects with less stringent rules where editors who find Wikipedia's policies and guidelines overwhelming can test their wings.  For example, you could create an article about the school on http://myschool.wikia.com.  Students could contribute to that article and learn Wikipedia's format (the engine is the same), and at the same time you could teach them a lesson about why Wikipedia's standards are so high and their importance for creating a reliable reference work.  That kind of lesson will serve them well when they get into their high school and college years and learning to properly research and cite your sources becomes increasingly important. PubliusFL 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for that other wiki link.  I think that is an excellent idea, and a good starting place for students to learn about wiki editing, until they are ready to be able to do true encyclopedic entries. --Pordaria 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Pordaria is wrong about “one of the best places to start would be for the students to write an article about their own school”.  It makes it too tempting for them to write things that they think they “know” rather than things sourced from verifiable references.  Maybe a better idea would be to have them find a subject covered by more than one non-fiction book in the school library, and to write an article on it, or improve the article if it already exists.  Even better would be to have the student choose and article needing improvement, doing further research, and then improving the article.  Improving an article will more quickly introduce the student to the importance of collaboration.  --SmokeyJoe 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would most certainly agree with SmokeyJoe. It's great that you're using Wikipedia in this way, and please know that nothing which has happened is intended in any way to disparage such efforts. At the same time, I believe the suggestion to make the project research and improvement or creation of an unrelated article is a very good one. Perhaps a subject you'll be covering later in your class might be a good one for the students to help out on, to get them a head start on their research into it? I'd be happy to offer any help and advice I can as you go along, as I'm sure many editors here would be, so please don't hesitate to ask. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exception to Notability for Student Editors (kids)? Or not? 

message: I had brought this up on an AFD yesterday, though I am unsure as to whether that the guideline backs this. My question is: does The History of Middle-earth count as an independent source? It's an analytical text which covers and can be seen as seperate to the Hobbit-LOTR-Silmarillion saga, but at the same time, it was written by the saga's author's son. Will (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author's son is the author of multiple well known critical works about his father.. There have been similar pairings in literary history. I consider him an accepted editor and critic.DGG (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related question

message: This may seem ridiculous, but let us consider this logically.
* Assumption: There is a finite number of articles on wikipedia
* Assumption: A 'finished' wikipedia represents the sum total of human knowledge
* Assumption: Wikipedia is itself 'notable'
If it could be proved that within the said wikipedia, there was a single article which was deemed non notable, this article could be considered notable on the basis that it was the only subject on wikipedia which didn't satisfy the notablity criteria. Under the circumstances of an obvious paradox, the subject would then be included on wikipedia.
A defence may be that there is for instance that there is more than 1 article not considered notable. Even given this, it would be notable because it would be part of a small group of articles deemed non notable.
If the number of articles deemed non notable is at least as big as those deemed non notable, the criteria of being reflective of the sum total of human knowledge can be called into question. How can such an encyclopaedia function if it doesn't contain half of all subjects?
Philipwhiuk 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This (in my opinion, mis) understanding comes from thinking we should try to invent our own notions of notability.  If we instead rely on sources, as any encyclopedia should, then we see that notability comes from the amount of coverage a given topic has gotten in appropriate sources.  When we look at it this way, your argument doesn't work anymore. Friday (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The third assumption above is false.  Notability refers to outside verifiable reliable publications, not Wikipedia itself.  Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable, verifiable outside publications and therefore something appearing in a Wikipedia article does not count toward notability. Dugwiki 15:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that Wikipedia is notable (there is plenty of non-trivial coverage of Wikipedia itself in reliable independent sources), the problem is that he applies the premise in such a way as to commit the fallacy of division: assuming that what is true of the whole is true of all of its parts.  Very few individual Wikipedia articles are themselves notable.  PubliusFL 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What I meant was that Wikipedia can not be used as a cited source for its own articles, and therefore can not be used as a cited source for purposes of determining notability.  Either way you slice it, though, we obviously agree that the argument is flawed. Dugwiki 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true - being "notable" does not qualify Wikipedia as a "reliable source" for WP:RS purposes, which the argument would essentially require. PubliusFL 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything is notable 

message: Even after providing numerous scholarly references to a subject, contributors persist with "delete" votes, dismissing all the references with a wave of the hand. I still have yet to see a delete changed to a keep after references were provided, ( although apparently one user did at least acknowledge that a simple search of Google scholar would have been enough, after registering a "delete" vote [but the vote was not officially changed to a "keep" or "neutral" despite this observation] ). Perhaps WP should really just stop calling itself an "Encyclopedia". dr.ef.tymac 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, indeed, depressing. It's the main reason I don't contribute much these days. Trollderella 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The closing admin is supposed to take into account changes to the article during the period of the AFD and adjust interpretation of the discussion accordingly.  If the primary concern by persons desiring delete was a lack of references, for the closing admin to ignore the fact that there is no longer a basis for these arguments for deletion isn't properly closing the AFD ... in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You must be new here. Trollderella 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as a back-up,  "additional references" is one of the relatively few arguments that seem to work at Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my mind a lot of times after somebody who "voted" after me provided reliable sources attesting to notability Corpx 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even scholarly references don't count 

message: I posted a comment on this talk in April, but got zero response, so I'm reposting it: I propose the construction of a separate subpage for judging notability of political parties. Notability in politics is clearly different from the procedure when judging notability on companies and commercial chains. A significant difference lies in that political parties (generally speaking) contest elections, a criteria that is widely different than presence in a market. --Soman 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not at all a different standard, in use or needed. If the party is covered in multiple reliable secondary sources, then we should have enough material to make a decent article and assert notability, just like anything else. Market presence (popularity) is not a measure of notability. Vassyana 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a verifiable article can be written, then that should be enough. Trollderella 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political parties 

message: I have had an idea for a bot that would help out a lot on AfD's, esepecially those regarding notability, by providing references and information for new articles. See my ideas etc at User:TheFearow/RefBot. Please direct comments/criticisms/ideas to that pages talk page. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Bot 

message: Congratulations!  To everyone who put in such hard work a few months back and to those who have continued to fine tune the work.  This really seems to be a good guideline and finally stable.  --Kevin Murray 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

message: :I'll see what it does to our coverage of fictional subjects before I say anything. It could apparently be used to reduce the field to a fraction of what it is, which isn't a desirable option to any but the most stringent deletionist, and the day we harm the encyclopedia to help the rules -- eh, you know the rest. --Kizor 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fiction has a subject specific guideline at: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Kevin Murray 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’d prefer to direct questions about fiction to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). WP:FICTION is mostly a derivative of WP:N and what remains is better covered by WP:WAF.  Kizor’s fears are well based.  When it comes to fiction, there is an awful lot original research and excessive plot summary out there.  --SmokeyJoe 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is WP:FICTION obsolete?  Should it be superseded and marked with the historical tag? --Kevin Murray 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No more obsolete than all of these, I would assume.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since it was just rewritten to comply with WP:NOT and WP:N (the previous version contradicted both). If used correctly, the new WP:FICT will help to remove or relocate a ton of minor fictional sub-articles in a reasonable fashion. — Deckiller 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Largely redundant, but no, not obsolete.  Different bands of editors have kept various notability guidelines remarkably up to date.  Currently, the ambiguous terminology and difficult logic is substantially improved over past versions, in my opinion.  A problem with so many redundant guidelines is complexity to the unsuspecting newcomer.  --SmokeyJoe 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on both points.  The notability scheme is still a bit complex when you first walk into it, but the guidelines coexist with each other much better these days than they used to.--Kubigula (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Fiction 

message: I'd been a member of Wikipedia for a while, but not a contributor. At least not until a month or so ago. I was writing something for another site about Hate crimes against LGBT people, and in the course of my research came across the Wikipedia category and the Violence against LGBT people page. I immediately noticed there were a number of cases I knew of that were not included. 
This, I thought, might be an opportunity to finally contribute to Wikipedia. I started researching cases, and writing them up with sources cited, etc. I contributed a number of entries. Two, on Nizah Morris and Nireah Johnson were featured in the "Did you know...?" section. 
My mistake, though, was not reading through all the notability guidelines before the first keystroke. Had I done so, I might not have started. One article was deleted entirely, and the articles on Roberto Duncanson and Nireah Johnson have been challenged as not being notable enough, with the latter threatened with deletion. The notability criteria stated for the objections to the two articles were:
*They were not the first crimes of their kind.
*They did not receive widespread coverage, were not "high profile," and did not involve "high profile" victims. 
*They did not cause major protests.
*They did not inspire new laws. 
I didn't read those specific criteria under the notability guidelines, but apparently they fall within the criteria. 
I have many more stories left to research and write up. In fact, I have a list of potential cases that's well over 100. But none of them are recent news. So WikiNews is not the right place for them. Most of them did not receive widespread mainstream coverage. Most of them did not inspire major protests. And almost none of them inspired new legislation. 
So there may not be a place for them on Wikipedia. And I can't know unless I write them up, publish them, and see what happens. I can only guess that they will not be notable enough for Wikipedia, and the hours I spend researching and writing them up here may very well be wasted. 
I'd hoped that recording the facts of these cases on Wikipedia would make them accessible to more people. But that's because I believe that what happened to these people is worthy of notice. Somewhere. But maybe not here. And I don't know where. At least not where they might get attention now. 
I may attempt to start an independent site where these cases can be documented with full citations, etc. But that will have have the disadvantage of starting from square one, and having many other sites to compete with. So it may be that the people whose stories I'm recording really aren't worthy of notice. 
This was my first experience contributing to Wikipedia. Right now I do not see how it will not also end up being my last. There are so many flaming hoops, I can't possibly jump through them all, not without getting singed. TerranceDC 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking briefly at the articles in question, I don't see any  notability problem. There are in each case multiple news articles on each hate crime, and that's enough to pass the threshhold of notability. COGDEN 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't see a notability issue. I see a size issue, and the subject may be better "organized" in a larger topic, but the significant coverage in outside, reliable sources satisfies the guideline it was tagged as not fulfilling.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Killed the Wikipedia Noob 

message: Sorry I was just wondering how articles which are lists meet the notability guideline. The notability guideline suggests that the topic of a page has to be notable but the contents do not. In a list often the oposite is the case with the contents notable but the topic  itself not, does there have to be significant coverage of a list or are they considered differently. For a list to be have an article do there have to be multiple sources describing such a list? Sorry if this comes up a lot or if there some handy guideline that I've missed that someone could point me towards. Guest9999 - sorry tilde key's broken.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs). 
:Re your broken tilde key preventing a signature.  Just above the edit window, the 10th button from the left will append your signature and the date. For the substance of your question,  see WP:LIST and Wikipedia:What is a featured list? --EdJohnston 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. [[Guest9999 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: I remember noticing a tendency for WP:N to used as a front for biased points of view, where a nominator selectively nominates for deletions subjects he doesn’t like, with arguments based around poorly defined criteria.  I judged the fault of this to lie with the poor readability of WP:N, especially the poor definition of “notable” (“poor” as in being liable to be interpreted differently by different people).  It seems to me that since then WP:N has become clearer, and that its misuse for POV causes at AfD is diminished.  Has anyone else noticed, or it is just in my mind?  --SmokeyJoe 04:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The clarification of WP:N and a correlated reduction of misuse at AfD?