Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 18

message: Hi.
I saw this: 
"... subjects with such coverage may still be non-notable – they fail What Wikipedia is not, ..."
Would this mean that "What Wikipedia is not" is a notability policy? mike4ty4 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is an inclusion policy. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the section to clarify its meaning; WP:NOT has nothing to do with notability, and the use of the term "notable" in the quoted statement essentially contradicts the primary notability criterion. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT? 

message: The best of WP:PORNBIO has been incorporated into BIO.  This has been discussed for some time, but I think that we now have the opportunity to reduce the clutter of page and still maintain our standards.  Please take a look at BIO and see whether the merge would make sense.  --Kevin Murray 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PORNBIO - merge to BIO 

message: Please update the table below as and when individual notability sub-pages are reformed. (Note: Table design nicked from G.A.S).—gorgan_almighty 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability criteria reform &mdash; progress 

message: I'm pretty sure notability is not a notability guideline but rather a general one. the wording "notability guideline" is just too recursive for my feeble little mind. -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  status of page 

message: What is happening with the WP:MUSIC guideline now?  Its pretty much the only inclusion guideline that hasn't been brought in-line with the inclusion criteria laid out in WP:N, and discussions about merging it into WP:N seem to have died.  What are we going to do with it?  —gorgan_almighty 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MUSIC 

message: I've recently seen an article about a Netherlands patient group where all the references are in Dutch. The article's author tells me that after I had flagged the article as needing confirmation of notability (ie needed a secondary source to confirm the orgnaisation as being notable), that this has now been provided - however that ref also points to a Dutch source. Assuming good faith and accepting, for the moment, that the patient group is notable in the Netherlands and so notable for the Dutch Wikipedia, I am left wondering whether an article only supported by non-english references is notable for inclusion within English Wikipedia ? I see nothing in the WP:N policy that addresses non-english related topics - can someone advise me, or point out where I should have looked ? David Ruben  Talk  18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know; language of sources are irrelevant in determining the suitability for inclusion of a topic, since WP is, after all, an international encyclopedia (the requirement being that articles are written in English, of course). Consider though, if the coverage (by reliable, independant sources) is substantial. If you really believe that the topic is unsuitable for inclusion, it would be best to take the matter to AfD, and see what happens. Regards, G.A.S  20:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-english topics 

message: It seems as though the criterion used for whether an article does or does not meet the standards as stated in WP:N is quite subjective and not objective as stated in the page.  I believe a more standard means of defining if an article meets this criteria should be created.  I hope this spurs a good discussion on what Wikipedia should or shouldn't contain in terms of the notability criteria.  Simply because a subject is not popular does not seem to be a reliable criteria of whether or not a topic is notable or not. TETFSU 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is not "coverage in reliable secondary sources" objective?  Understandably, that depends on how you consider the objectiveness of "reliable" and "secondary sources", but still, that's a less-grey line than previously held for notability. --MASEM 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The criterion is not stated to be either subjective or objective, and I think it shouldn’t be, because the criterion gets used in cases where its application is neither 100% subjective nor 100% objective.  What WP:N does say is that evidence should be objective.  --SmokeyJoe 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Defined Notability Criterion 

message: I don't know if this has ever been suggested before, but I'd like to hear opinions on the notability of television programmes. Some might state that all television shows are notable but I wouldn't say so, not with little 3-minute things, educational programmes and digital programmes that have not been the subject of secondary coverage. There are probably some non-notable television channels, at least in the UK on Sky Digital, as they have not been discussed in WP:RS. I'm going to nominate House Auction for deletion after this, to get more opinions. I'd like to make an article about The KNTV Show, but I don't think it's notable. I need help here.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A seperate notability guideline is not needed since such shows fails the general notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Seperate notability guidelines could as such only be more strict than this guideline, but I believe that would be unnecessary. See also WP:FICT regarding the requirement for real world information in fiction related articles. Regards, G.A.S  21:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did make the article that I wanted to, and nominated it for deletion just to see whether people think it's worthy of inclusion.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EPISODE and WP:TV for extensive discussion about this kind of thing. It seems that "in theory no, in practice yes" Conrad.Irwin 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a notability guideline for television shows? 

message: Are there any notability guidelines for places? Where are they located? If not, do places (such as streets and neighborhoods) have notability guidelines? Minn3s0ta 15:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an essay I found: User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people; but the normal notability guideline should suffice—i.e. has the place been covered in enough reliable secondary sources, e.g. the media? This is important because if there is no reliable sources, the article is not verifiable. The WikiProjects may also have guidelines : G.A.S  15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other links you might find of use: Wikipedia:Places of local interest; Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability;  Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Roads and streets; and Wikipedia:Notability (highways).--Fuhghettaboutit 16:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well even simpler is that places are inherently notable, so notability guidelines for them are unnecessary.  However, other guidelines, specifically verifiability, do constrain them. Let us not mix-up our guidelines. --Bejnar 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just places, but populated places. The specific guidance is at WP:OUTCOMES: "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." The basic wisdom behind this is that it is pointless to argue whether a village of mud huts in Africa is more or less notable than a subdivision of McMansions in North America. The bottom line is that we allow recognition of any populated place as long as its existence is verifiable, without requiring an assertion of notability other than a non-zero population at some time in history. Normal rules for merging and splitting content apply, so info on the typical subdivision will probably be merged/redirected to a larger political subdivision, but the redirect should remain as long as the place exists. Dhaluza 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Places? 

message: I've been researching different Massively Multi-Player On-Line Role Playing Games (MMORPG).  The entries currently in this Wikipedia on the different MMORPGs have proven very helpful.  Then, just recently I see that many entries "may not satisfy the Notability guidelines."
As I read the current guidelines, they won't allow contributions that include new ground-breaking developments (before agreed upon by many "experts"), controversial topics, or entries that may be of interest to a small population.  Only those things that "experts" all agree on, and are of general interest, would be considered notable.  This is of great concern to me.  I want a place where I can go to find out about every different flavor of Linux, where I can learn about different political systems, and people like Thom Adcox-Hernandez, and where I can find out about every different MMORPG on the planet - even ones that aren't "notable".  Maybe notable should be defined as "someone cares about this topic enough to take the time to make note of it in OUR wikipedia." 
B.T.W: I never heard of Thom Adcox-Hernandez until I hit the Random article link.  If he is more notable than Deliantra (a computer game) per the current guidelines (he's not marked as not meeting the guideline) that is flat-out wrong.  I'm not saying that Thom is not notable.  My point is that just as many of us care about, and take note of different computer games, as those who care about and take note of American voice actors.
Markkauffman2000 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS, WP:NOR etc which Notability is based on have been around since the beginning and are core wikipedia policies. Notability is basically an extension of these which makes it easier for editors to make a decision on one specific aspect of existing policies Nil Einne 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Notable? 

message: John Nevins - does notability extend to Bishops?  Corvus cornix 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that being a bishop automatically gives one notability any more than being a colonel does.  I think that a bishop or a colonel needs to actually have done something notable to be notable. This is unlike archbishops or generals who can be presumed to have done something notable, even if the Wikipedia article in question does not reflect it. --Bejnar 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was my feeling, as well, I just wasn't aware of any precedents.  I'm going to nom this for AfD.  Corvus cornix 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if this is the right place to discuss this but I must disagree that Roman Catholic Bishops are not notable. Many Bishops control dioceses with greater land mass and greater population then some countries.  Bishops are chosen by the Pope to "rule" their dioceses untill they die, resign, retire or are appointed to another Diocese.  Surely they are more notable then most Secretaries of the Tresury or the Grand Duke of Luxemburg or his childen.  So I feel that more thought should be given before such a broad definition is given that Bishops are not notable solely by being a Bishop.Callelinea 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't bother nominating a Roman Catholic Bishop. While not explicitly mentioned in WP:N it's a common outcome that they pass by virtue of office. As Callelinea pointed out, some of the newer diocese cover multiple countries, particularly in Africa. It's sort of grandfathered in as a regional political office from back when the church had temporal mastery.  Now if there's not proof he's actually a Bishop, you've got a chance. I'd tag it first even in that event.  Horrorshowj 05:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and while also doing more research.. there are over 20 categories of Roman Catholic Bishops, some broken down by countries or dioceses.. So obviosly Wikipedia considers individual articles on Bishops acceptable.Callelinea 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Where do you draw the line?  Monsignors?  Parish priests?  Corvus cornix 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would draw the line at the Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells, and I think many other editors would do well to do likewise.--feline1 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?Horrorshowj 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally? I originally agreed with Bejnar that it should be Archbishop and above, since that's a quasi-political regional office. I've argued for deletion on the basis that Bishop isn't notable enough. It went about 15-2 and WP:SNOW keep, which is more competitive than most of their AfD seem to be. Nobody has claimed lower than Bishop as inherently notable, and I doubt anyone would take such a claim seriously.  I've seen 10 or so bishops landslide an AFD  solely based on office, but the next one I see lose will be the first.  It probably should be added to common outcomes at some point. Horrorshowj 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I argued for bishops being notable, considering their responsibility for a city or another substantial territory. (note that this applies only to bishops of territorially-organsed churches, not those where bishop is merely an honorific.) Below that, certainly not. For a parish priest, even a Monsignor, the notability would have to be proven specifically--just as for local churches and neighborhood things in general. Part of the reason as I see it is just plain practicality--the greater number of groups of things we can move out of AfD, the more time we have for the serious issues. There's a limited number of things we can discuss, and a great many things that do need to be individually discussed in order to be deleted. DGG (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with gorgan_almighty: the general guidelines cover this just fine. We have some simple principles which can be applied across all articles, and the less we clutter up the guidelines with un-necessary instruction-creep, the better. Some of the specific proposals here are bizarre: if we were to limit notability to priests to the rank of bishops, that would mean that we couldn't have an article on James Horan, a parish priest who had 100% name recognition in Ireland (albeit with a currently weak article on wikipedia). And why give automatic presumptiom of notability to a bishop if the sources don't exist to write a decent article about him which passes the relatively low threshold of notability on WP:BIO? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He would pass general. The requirement is to pass general or any of the specifics, not both. An article with enough documentation that the subject meets a specific will pass an AfD, one that can't prove it meets any will get deleted. Horrorshowj 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I must disagree, Popes are considered notable.  Yet some early popes there are no more then 6 lines on them because other then being elected pope there is nothing notable about them.  References ae often very few on early popes but they are considered notable.  I THINK  based on a consensus of the 3 (René Henry Gracida, John Joseph Nevins, Felipe de Jesús Estévez)AFD's just passed that every Roman Catholic Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal and Pope are Notable and from an Auxiliary Bishop below must pass threshold of notability. Callelinea 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They may be considered inherently notable by you, perhaps, but that is subjective (it is dependant on your point of view).  Wikipedia requires objective evidence in order to prevent editor bias.  Only significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources can assert notability. —gorgan_almighty 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you bothered to read the AfD on those 3 bishops you will see that ALL the editos agreed with me with the exception of the nominiator and 2 others. Callelinea 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishops 

message: Please SEMIiprot this page. This policy page has been slashdotted. SYSS Mouse 13:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dropped a request for 1-2 day prot for WP:N, WP:FICT and WP:WAF (full ideally). --MASEM 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semiprotected this page for a week. Other admins, reduce or increase at will, no need to discuss this first with me AFAIC. Fram 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEMI 

message: I've written up a (very rough and embryonic) propsal regarding "semi-notability"; any input, comments, throwing of rotten vegetables, and so forth would be very welcome. Kirill 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-notability 

message: Should this http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Story_preparation/Wikipedia_versus_the_WebComics:_Define_notability be linked?Herve661 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Aren't all geographical entries allowed, even if they only have the primary census data? There are still many articles created by the census dump that never went beyond the primary census data. That is an example of inherent notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, particularly for populated places. There are other groups of fact-heavy subject areas that are not usually the topic of secondary analysis that also don't fit the typical notability guidelines like airports and aircraft. There are also groups of topics that are better served by comprehensive coverage rather than haphazard coverage such as Area codes in the United States. This is why the absolute requirement for multiple secondary sources did not achieve consensus, and the current guideline text only strongly recommends, but does not require them. Dhaluza 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography as inherent notability

message: I see that Wikipedia:Notability is now prominently listed throughout policy pages as one of six “Article Standard” policies and guidelines, with: Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:VERIFY), No original research (WP:NOR), Biographies on living persons (WP:BLP) and Deletion policy (WP:DEL).  This is an interesting milestone.  --SmokeyJoe 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Common Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines 

message: The definition of Notability implies that this is a property of the topic and not the article, but in many AfD discussions it seems to be treated as a property of the article.  Could that be brought out as a bullet point in the "General notability guideline" section?  An article that lacks sources should be improved or called up on WP:V.  Notability only applies to the topic of the article, not the article itself. Mdmkolbe 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first step, I have bolded the word "topic" in the statement of the general notability criterion and have removed the bolding from the bullet points so that they don't attract the bulk of a reader's attention. I have mixed feelings about adding a bullet point. On the one hand, many people do indeed seem to miss (or ignore) the fact that notability is a characteristic of topics. On the other, the text makes this point abundantly clear in the lead paragraph alone: "The topic of an article should be notable", "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable", "guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics" (emphasis mine, except in the last quote). To be honest, I don't know how useful another restatement of the point will be. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the clarification sounds useful, but there's a danger of hair-splitting here. The notability of topic and notability of article can't be entirely separated: an article needs to assert the notability of the topic, and to demonstrate that notability through references to reliable sources. In other words, the article should make its own case for its existence, and provide the pointers for a reader whoo knows nothing about the subject to verify the notability just as they can verify the facts.  Unfortunately, the essential simplicity of the notability guidelines is being obscured by the massive instruction creep in all the sub-guidelines, and editors' work would be much much easier if there was a massive pruning of them. It would be far more useful to give more detailed general guidance on how to apply the principle of assessing references against the notability guidelines than to try to micromanage the outcome of every individual case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been working toward this goal for almost a year.  There are three ongoing tasks: (1) intercept the flood of new proposals for guidelines,  (2) merge superfluous guidelines, and (3) clarify and simplify those that remain.  Right now WP:PROF is due for evaluation; for some time the core has been incorporated into WP:BIO, but PROF has not been redirected.  --Kevin Murray 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability as part of Topic not Article 

message: Why create a guideline or policy which functionally discourages more information on wikipedia? If someone wants to write an extended article on character x from eclectic game y then food them, that games community and the wiki. We shouldn't be deliberately preventing people from putting as much information up here as they want. 122.104.225.84 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're using the word "information" without any discrimination. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means by definition it is a tertiary source which synthesizes primary and secondary sources for its information and also means it is not many other things. A topic which is not the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources can't be made into an encyclopedia article because we can't write a tertiary source entry about it. This doesn't functionally discourage more information. It requires that this encyclopedia functions as an encyclopedia, and it requires that information be accurate and rely on already published sources. Wikipedia was never intended to be a collection of "all information" (whatever that means), and not all information is knowledge.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't information given in a movie or game or tv show about a character primary information, the most reliable information and thus not an issue for an encyclopaedia - some things don't need "secondary sources" or discussion. I don't need to read about what Person X thinks about Superman, that's just stupid. Some of these wiki policies are retarded. 122.104.225.84 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some things are fine to use from the movie/game/tv show, but Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching/reading/playing any of those things, and thus not the place to write up a characters fictional life story. If you want such a thing, go watch the movie/tv show, read the book, or play the game. Things that happen in the "in universe" aspect of the character is just context to the real world information. YOU may not want to read about "why" a character hates Superman, but I'm sure there was a reason given by the writer as to why he/she wanted them to hate Superman.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What you're really saying is that you think the encyclopedic form is "retarded". That's fine. You are free to go to lots of other sites that are not encylopedias. However, in order to remain an encyclopedia we will keep enforcing policies that ensure that content conforms to what this place is.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't really an encyclopaedia. It's not written by known recognised authors, the content is often wrong and there are numerous displays of vandalism throughout it. Many of the articles don't even cite sources, primary or otherwise. Wikipedia tries to be one, but because just anyone is able to add information to it, I can go say Prince Charles is really a goat and that Katie Holmes used to be a man right now if I wanted. I didn't say "i think the encyclopedic form is retarded", you said that. 122.104.225.84 04:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because wikipedia is not perfect, it shouldn't try to be? Most regular editors know very well what's wrong with wikipedia, so let's roll up our sleeves and work on making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. – sgeureka t•c 12:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Have it? 

message: Are public school automatically considered notable, or do they have no assert it like any other topic? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a specific guideline on it, but the general outcome for AfD is that High Schools and above are considered sufficiently notable, elementary/primary/junior high etc aren't. Still needs to be verifiable for the ones that are generally considered, obviously. Horrorshowj 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability & Schools 

message: I've seen two recent AFD debates that were heavily basing WP:N on non-english sources (done and ongoing).  I understand and support the use of non-english sources to add information and act as references and reliable sources, but do they also apply to justify notability?  Something that has extensive coverage in all languages except english on english wikipedia, would mean that it has notability in the countries or areas where the language is spoken, but has not made the leap to international news or research.  It's a fine line between english (or any language) chauvinism and the reality of a phenomenon not moving out of a limited geographic or cultural area.  Coming down against non-english sources for notability obviously would mean a greater limitation of what appears on En wikipedia. Has this been covered before, or is it hair splitting to say something works for WP:RS but not WP:N?  WLU 17:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English sources are not required, as such a requirement would contribute heavily to systemic bias. If having someone who speaks the language evaluate the sources for reliability and independence would be helpful in determining notability, you can always visit WP:BABEL to find someone to ask for help. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Seraphimblade, but the sources have to be there (in any language) in the first place to establish notability. When in doubt, I usually see whether an other-lanugage wiki has an article on the subject. If even the "natives" don't consider the subject sufficiently notable (or popular, who knows) to have an article, it's not far off to expect non-notability and go for AfD. – sgeureka t•c 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems like a no brainer but what happens in practice is a good guide to what should be addressed in guidelines. Of course non-English sources can be reliable and thus confer notability, albeit, with less transparency for our generally English language speaking readership. It's not really an issue of notability per se, but rather whether the reliable sources notability requires can be foreign. As such, wouldn't such clarification be better placed in WP:RS?--Fuhghettaboutit 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Now that you mention it, given that WP:V is the only guideline to mention this question, it might actually be worth taking it up a notch to core policy.  I think an entry on WP:NOT covering this question would make sure we're not chasing down exceptions and trying to figure out which combination of entries on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N is the most effective. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-english sources 

message: I've always understood that the existence of an article on wikipedia is not proof of notability and therefore non-existence of an article is not proof on non-notability. Is this written in any guideline cause i can't find it. --Neon white 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  --SmokeyJoe 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or yes - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --81.150.229.68 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the principle is the same, another exploration of “reasoning by analogy is logically flawed”.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It would seem to be pretty obvious such that there is no need to repeat it somewhere. Obviously, because anyone can create an article the presence of an article on Wikipedia does not thereby make its subject notable; and less necessarily, because a corpus of articles is not written in a central, organized, all-inclusive fashion, the absence of an article does not mean that someone decided it was not notable. —Centrx→talk • 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an essay called Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability about this. But it is an essay. – sgeureka t•c 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to put every possible true statement into something officially tagged as "policy". —Centrx→talk • 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The essay might be where i read it. I asked because I've heard editors try to use the non-existence of an article as proof of non-notability for inclusion in a list. --Neon white 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be OK to cite an essay in a deletion discussion, provided you point out it's an essay. EdJohnston 06:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing an essay amounts to "Here's a page that lays out an argument that I agree with." Nifboy 23:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence/non-existence 

message: I feel that a recent rewording of WP:FICT now directly contradicts this guideline (among others) - I have brought up the issue here - if anyone would like to comment. [[Guest9999 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FICT]] 

message: I dispute this section's position in this guideline. Guidelines are based on either:
   1. Wikimedia-wide policy conventions that have been established among all the Wikimedia projects.
   2. Current conventions, practices, and standards, established over time by consensus among Wikipedia editors.
As different projects have their own deletion policies and inclusion standard, I doubt this is based on number 1. However, this process is hardly a common practice (at least now) and no longer refers to current conventions or practices. I propose that this section be: a. Reworded to reflect actual common practice, b. Removed entirely, c. Moved to a less binding process page, or some combination of these. Mr.Z-man 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be common practice in your judgement?  --Nehwyn (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is general advice on what to do. And I do think it reflects common practice. What part do you disagree with? 1 != 2 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its great advice, but should advice be put together with rules? "Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources." - How many people actually do that? "Put the  tag on the article to alert other editors." - That's hardly a prerequisite before tagging for deletion and from my experience is only done a small percentage of the time. "If the article is about a specialized field, use the  tag" - That tag is rarely used with, and makes no mention of, notability. Mr.Z-man 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my experience, the  tag is used quite often. There are Over 5000 articles currently bearing that tag (I didn't look exactly how many). I agree the  tag doesn't mention notability, and isn't used as much. Asking the article's creator is always good advice whenever you're going to do anything major to their article, and proposing it for deletion because of lack of notability certainly qualifies. In short, if you want to delete the expert-subject bit, seems reasonable. The other two points are better kept. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  tag is in wide use, but how often is it used as a precursor to deletion? Mr.Z-man 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This section does reflect common practice, with the exception of the aforementioned expert-subject point. In the interest of full disclosure, this dispute was logged after it was pointed out to Mr.Z-man that he had not followed the processes in this section before proposing articles for deletion. dhett (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did find it from that discussion, however, my point is that almost no one follows this as a guideline. I am slightly offended by your assumption of bad faith. Mr.Z-man 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputing this section as a response to being called on not following procedures outlined here makes assuming good faith more difficult than it otherwise might be. As one noted legal scholar once said, "If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither is on your side, bang on the table." Given the chain of disputes that has led here, I imagine your table is quite dented by now. - Dravecky (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, forget it. Mr.Z-man 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have only assumed good faith. I have fully disclosed the circumstances of this challenge, which you should have done yourself. dhett (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? This comment suggests otherwise and I was quite offended. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed good faith, but when you came here and disputed the policy that you did not follow while the deletion review was still open, and then not telling anyone here that the discussion that led you here is still open, that's a bad faith move. And you've been called on it. Now, I apologize for my "shameless" comment; it was inappropriate, and I am doing a mea culpa for it where I posted it. I do not apologize for exposing what looked like an attempted end run around a policy you don't like by starting a dispute discussion on it. Especially since I don't believe anyone here knew about the deletion review in progress, and certainly no one at the deletion review knew you were doing this. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That still assumes that I did this to hide my mistake or something like that. That could not be farther from the truth. I was not aware of the specifics of that section before the DRV. After I read it, all I noticed was that that is not very close to the actual procedure that is followed and should be chnaged to reflect actual practice. Mr.Z-man 03:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines 

message: Is this the place to discuss these things?  I think that the standards for notability on wikipedia are a bit too strict, perhaps in how they are worded, and perhaps in how they are enforced.  As an example, take the recent debate over the page Gamma Zee.  When I read the guidelines I understand how people feel this page ought to be deleted.  I think about it, and I realize that other people are making valid arguments to delete the page based on the guidelines, and I simply disagree with the guidelines.  What is the appropriate avenue for discussion about this?  This page is just an example--I feel this topic comes up very often.  Cazort (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, everyone here has some topics on which s/he thinks our notability standards are too lax, and some on which they are too stringent. As there is not actually any basic agreement, the result is an erratic and unstable compromise, and any apparent lack of enforcement is really a reflection of the general inconsistency. This is a system that sees no reason why decisions in comparable cases should be similar, and thinks that a virtue. I see no practical way to keep this an open project and effect any basic change in these matters. DGG (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very rarely think that the wikipedia standards on notability are too lax.  In fact, I cannot think of a single example of a page that I thought should be deleted which actually survived a deletion discussion.  The other way around, on the other hand, happens all over the place.  This is why I decided to bring this up here.  Cazort (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Are notability deletions popular among anybody outside of our especially, uh, diligent editors? What is the process for reversing or overhauling a guideline? I think there may be the support for that in this case. --MQDuck (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But WP's goal is not to be the sum of human knowledge; one of WP's five pillars is that WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information.  Notability is the line that defines what is appropriate for inclusion verses what is "indiscriminate". --MASEM 13:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Issues 

message: Was there one? Wikipedia:SCHOOLCONSENSUS was just created which appears to be aiming for that? • Lawrence Cohen 06:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guideline page for schools? 

message: Does this line in Template:Notability: 
:"It should never be used with Wikipedia:Subst."
Mean that this line in this article:
:"To place a dated tag, put a  tag."
Should be changed? --Hebisddave (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change recommendation for adding a date to Template:Notability?