Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)

message: Since this is far from my area of expertise I'm wondering if anyone can help with the notability of these two entries Shorty Awards and Foodimentary.  The latter of these strikes me as non-notable.  There is no reliable independent coverage of the subject.  However, Foodimentary has apparently won a Shorty Award, which would satisfy #2 here if the Shorty Awards are "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization."  Any thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Eikou please provide the links here.  They are not "articles" in my mind.  Epicurious is a website known mostly for its user generated content, and I see no indication that conducting and publishing an interview on that website meets WP:RS criteria.  I see no indication that SlashFood is more than a food blog.  Is it an RS?  FInally, the Fine Cooking reference is to an online blurb written by an intern and not an article published in the magazine itself.Griswaldo (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Epicurious Article, SlashFood article, Fine Cooking Article.  By the RS guidelines, I would say Epicurious is reliable.  The SlashFood article, upon review, I could agree about.  The Fine Cooking article, as mentioned on the discussion page for Foodimentary, is indeed written by an intern.  Also as mentioned, I've found nothing in the RS guidelines that should make the fact that it was written by an intern invalidate the article.  When an intern submits an article to the company they work for, the company still has to review and approve it.  It would seem to me that regardless of the author, the article carries the reliability of the magazine that published it.Eikou (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *Sorry for the double post.  I just found this article that seems to be from a major newspaper called "Biotech Week".  I thought it may be better than the Knight Foundation article.  They're both from the Google search.   Much love, Eikou (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorty Awards and Foodimentary 

message: As part of my recent request for adminship, I was asked to review the page at a copyediting perspective, which I did so in this edit. Below is a list of changes made within the one edit.
*I made the use of serial commas consistent throughout the text.
*I removed various instances of repeated spaces within the code. This has no effect on the article's appearance, but explains the apparent lack of changes in some highlighted regions in the diff.
*I replaced all instances of "our" with "the" or "Wikipedia's" to remove feeling of exclusivity.
*I clarified the first sentence of the article. "Any form of web-specific content" was replaced with "a form of web-specific content" for precision of meaning and to illustrate (yet again) that the guideline does not apply in every situation.
*I rephrased the line defining "web concept" in the first paragraph ("any content [...] of this guideline, as web content") to remove awkwardness.
*In the second lead paragraph, the phrase "Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy" was awkward-sounding, especially in printed versions of this page where there are no wikilinks. Because the policy is not named by its "true name" ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox"), I preceded the phrase with "the idea that"; thus, it reads, "the idea that Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy...".
*In the final lead paragraph (in the part describing ), I changed "to make other editors aware of the problem" to "to alert other editors to the problem" for concision (the third "C" of copyediting: "clear, correct, concise, complete, and consistent").
*I made the sentence in final lead paragraph about AfD slightly more concise and straightforward.
*I made the final line of the final lead paragraph (about WP:PROD and WP:SPEEDY) more accurate (explained PROD further to include the need for lack of controversy), clear (removed possible ambiguity), and detailed (added link to WP:A7 so editors can find further reference).
*Last line, first paragraph "No inherent notability": I made the first letter of "see" lowercase for grammatical/stylistic reasons.
*I removed "just as individuals can be notable" from the second paragraph in "No inherent notability", since it seems to be used as a sort of a proof for the idea that "smaller websites can be notable". It's not wholly related or analogous.
*I reworded the last paragraph (or line) in "No inherited notability" more concise.
*I improved the flow of the list of "reliable published works" by using a more parallel structure.
*I corrected word meaning in the second bullet in the "except the following" numbered list in criterion #1 by changing the word "or" to "and"—all exceptions apply simultaneously, not just one at a time.
*I fixed footnote #2 by correcting the meaning of the sentence. The article about the content should be redirected, not the web content!
*I "fixed" the spelling of "encyclopedia" in footnote #5 (i.e., "encyclopaedia"). Yes, I know, "encyclopaedia" is a legitimate spelling alternative for the word, but honestly? Like using "lede paragraph" instead of "lead paragraph", it really has no beneficial effect anyway.
*I clarified, slightly, the meaning of various sentences in footnote #5.
*Footnote #6 may in fact be redundant.
If anyone has any objections or comments, feel free to discuss them below. Guoguo12 (Talk)  11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I semi-object to removal of "our", and think we should go in the other direction (occasionally, but at least once per page) in policy and guideline pages (but not wikiproject advice pages, or in essays), because it has exactly the opposite effect on the former two types of page: It's describing  best practices as a  (in the latter two cases, it would be interpreted as WP:OWN nonsense by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-pushing WP:FACTION, of course). But whether to use "our" more in WP:POLICY pages is probably a matter for a WP:VPPOL RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: Would having a significant number of notable people being interviewed on a website not confirm notability of that website?  Any objection towards that being added to this guideline's page under web content?  Just because the mainstream news media doesn't cover certain things, doesn't mean it isn't notable.  Dream Focus 04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Why would it? That in itself doesn't mean anything. I don't know what you have in mind here, but, say, a website for a science fiction convention can post a lot of interviews of famous people, or just some random personal blog can track down a bunch of famous people by email and put up some slapdash interviews. We let stuff up that isn't particularly notable just because the guidelines here for inclusion are already overly generous, let's not open the door even more. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Loads and loads and loads of famous people have taken a dump at any particular roadside rest-stop. Notability does not rub off from the notable onto other things.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  If a website has a lot of famous/notable people reviewed there, shouldn't it be considered notable? 

message: Does it has notability?--Kaiyr (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kaiyr: for notability of specific items I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Damn, it was archived? Hmmm. I guess you are in the right place then... have you compared this to the guideline? How does it meet the criteria? Tells us what point is unclear and we can help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.muturzikin.com 

message: Would it be covered by this guideline? I wonder if Wikipedia:Notability (fonts) should redirect here, and should we have a section or a sentence about them? Or would Wikipedia:Notability (software) be a better place for this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. Fonts are not websites, but are software.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of fonts 

message: I do not have any YouTuber in particular in mind, but I realize there are a handful of articles of articles on YouTubers. Obviously, merely posting content would not establish notability. While I realize that several factors determine notability, I was wondering how many subscribers (roughly) a notable YouTuber would have.
Thanks
HarryOtter (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention this now: I've just declined an A7 on 442oons for having 1 million subscribers (although significance is lower than notability). I also just checked Angry Video Game Nerd's YouTube account, and he has around 2 and a quarter million subscribers. Of course, I don't know if that's the norm for notable YouTubers. Adam9007 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

text: This is because Wikipedia does not consider "number of subscribers" to be a measure of notability.  Because right now, it isn't.  If your YouTube channel is notable (by Wikipedia terms) then someone somewhere will have written an article about it in a reliable independent published third-party source.  Or (according to these guidelines) your YouTube channel will have won some kind of recognized award (I have no idea what kinds of awards are possible or how recognized they are, but those are the rules).  In a nutshell: you can have 10 billion subscribers, but unless having that many subscribers ALSO happens to means that you have acquired the attention of multiple published reliable independent verifiable non-trivial sources, you are not Wiki-notable.    Which you almost certainly would be, if you had 10 billion subscribers!  Make sense??   Having said that, You are more than welcome to propose an alteration/ addition to the subject-specific guidelines for websites that includes numbers of subscribers as a criterion for inclusion.  I believe that this very talk page would be the place to do it, and that you would probably need to write up something like a Request for Comment to see how the cards might fall.A loose necktie (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability on YouTube 

message: An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:
Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @  23:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about independent sources for academic biographies 

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNGs and GNG 

message: This guideline on notability for websites states two conditions for which it will admit the existence of notability for a website and allow an article on the subject.  The first of these appears to be a re-statement of the General  Notability Guidelines, and the second is the winning of certain unnamed awards.  It then states that meeting "either of these two conditions" likely qualifies an article as notable.  My question is this: why do we have subject-specific notability guidelines for websites (or for any subject, for that matter) that state that one of the conditions for establishing notability is meeting the General Notability Guidelines?  Isn't that... Redundant?  And arent' there a lot of SSNGs that pretty much say the same thing?  "You can either meet the General  Notability Guidelines or you can meet these other "special" guidelines..."  If a subject meets the GNG, doesn't the conversation end right there?  I think that the reason editors come to SSNGs is to see if their subject maybe qualifies as notable under a certain special guideline.  Isn't that because they already know it likely fails to meet the GNG?  Why does this need restating here?  If it doesn't (and I don't think it does) then shouldn't we just axe it?  Or does the whole guideline for websites start to sound kind of stupid if we don't leave it in?  A loose necktie (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: GNG ≠ Notable: . It's not a guarantuee. Paradoctor (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "presumption" of notability wasn't my point there.  My point was that the SSG seems to be restating the GNG as one of its own requirements, which, if it is true, doesn't seem to warrant the reiteration.  Or am I missing something?  A loose necktie (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Late to the discussion, but I was thinking the same thing. BilledMammal (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

text: . I find this to be a weird argument to make, since if something passes GNG, it is notable in almost all cases, unless there is an SNG or policy that adds restrictions on top of GNG, such as NCORP or NOT. In general, GNG = Notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree that WP:NWEB #1 seems identical to GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  But GNG=Notable, yes? 

message: This SNG seems a bit verbose. The meat and potatoes of this SNG/page seems to be the two criteria, and it seems to me that criteria #1 is just re-stating GNG. So one might conclude that the only unique thing on this whole page is criterion #2, 
This is a pattern I've noticed with a lot of the SNGs. Their pages are noisy, with the important criteria buried amid a restatement of principles (not inherent, not inherited, GNG, etc.) and buried between rarely used criteria that no longer come up at AFD.
Anyway, this SNG with possibly only one unique criteria seems like it might be a good SNG to merge with another page, perhaps NCORP. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just scrap it? If it's just one criteria that I don't imagine is used very often it probably isn't worth having a guideline on, or spending the time working out how to fit an inclusive guideline into an exclusionary SNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web SNG is a bit verbose