Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 7

message: I found some editorial statements commented out in the page; these belong on the talk page.
* Policy and guidelines may change  This WAS total "wikigeeking". This has to be spelled out in generalized, everyday language, or it doesn't work in a Guideline. Personal opinion: This addition is useless, because we already know everything it says - it is META-content, not content; we might as well append this same disclaimer to the end of WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc., etc., etc.   -SMCandlish
* Consensus can change Ditto, in EVERY respect, including that it is just reiteration of Wikipedia-wide givens we already know. OF COURSE it can change; that's true of EVERYthing on the entire system.  And just the fact that it says "WP:AfD" (i.e. using abbreviated wikigeek form) indicates that this passage hasn't figured out where it's going yet; someone who has been on the system for only 12 minutes ought to be able to grok this document.  "Not ready for prime time."  Strongly suggest moving all of this to Talk page, in as many topics as are needed.  And revert these two additions for now; "Disputed" template being present or not, this Guideline is still being treated as actionable, meanwhile these new additions are confusing and incompletely formed -- none of them were discussed at all -- ergo likely to lead to conflicts.)   -SMCcandlish
*Oh yeah, and in response, we don't need to state "this page and related pages can change" on every guideline, as that is inherent in the wiki and explained on other policy/guideline pages. (Radiant) 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Right; that was what I was getting at.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that no-one knows what this 'guideline' means. Trollderella 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Right; that's why it's Disputed.  I think a lot of progress is being made though.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: sure. Trollderella 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Please refactor this so that it's an indented reply to whatever it is replying to instead of a new section — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood it (I think).  Trollderella, I think your edits improved to that section, and I appreciate your help in making this guideline less subjective and more firmly grounded in policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry SM, I was replying to an edit comment that GTBacchus made to me - it was oblique - sorry! I meant that I was ok with the edit GT made! Trollderella 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GT

message: One passage now says "What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms, including but not limited to: newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television documentaries, reports by organizations or government agencies, scientific journals, etc.", and is lacking most of the e-media mentioned in the prior draft (online magazines and online databases in particular).  What's the rationale there?  I think that having these in there is very important.  There's no WP-cognizable difference between a paper copy of a magazine and its online-archived version, or for that matter between a paper magazine/newspaper (e.g. The New York Times or Newsweek) and an online-only one (e.g. Wired News or CNet News); note that it never mentioned online journals or e-forums, for a reason I think we all agree on.  Note also that most medical articles on WP heavily cite OMIM and other online medical databases and that these sources are generally regarded as authoritative (in WP's context, anyway).  I think it is important that WP guidelines/policy be clear that WP does not make a distinction between dead trees sources and electronic ones, esp. given its own nature.  Is there some objection to being clear about that that I'm unaware of?  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Online versions of offline publications remain magazines, etc., and the articles are usually identical. With online databases also, it is just a different means of viewing the same publication. So, they are already included in the wording while adding new "online magazines" opens up a host of unreliable blogs, etc. —Centrx→talk • 10:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that any online media can be just as reliable as print.  Killing trees doesn't make the information more reliable.  Perhaps the wording could be "online media with editorial control."  A source is much more reliable if there are editors or moderators who fact check and fix or challenge faulty information.  We can mention this here, but a fuller explanation belongs in WP:RS  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-media 

message: Notability as it stands is about whether or not to include a *topic* in wikipedia. I think we should change the page to criteria for *information* that should be included on wikipedia. *Information* needs to have multiple sources. Rewriting this essay on the inclusion of information gets rid of the subjective "non-triviality" criteria all together. The inclusion of an article depends solely on the inclusion of the information in the article. Having either inclusion or exclusion critera for topics invites newcomers to misinterpret policy and write a whole bunch of unverifiable information on a topic on the grounds that the topic is "notable". Fresheneesz 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change notability to be about information 

message: It strikes me that "Notability" is a misnomer, leading to abuse as people erroneously equate it with "this is not important to me" and use its name to justify all sorts of evils (and RfDs).  Should "Notability" be renamed to "Breadth of Sources" or "Objectivity of Sources"?  Could one of these be a more objective title, more accurately reflecting the intent of the proposed guideline?
Even then the proposed guideline should be careful not to capture articles which are under development and not yet fully referenced.  Perhaps all stub articles should be automatically outside Notability and a condition of transition from stub to full article be that the article satisfies guidelines (including this proposal)? John Dalton 02:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To some extent, this is what the word "notability" does mean. Notability is not exactly breadth or objectivity of sources, however, it is just how it is practically defined for the purposes of this guideline. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should definately be renamed. The problem is, once you rename it, it becomes obvious that it is simply a restatement of existing policy. Trollderella 03:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please elaborate the meaning of "practically defined for the purposes of this guideline" and what other type of definition there is? John Dalton 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Side point, inserting randomly here in blatant disregard for community norms:  I wonder if much of this page might better be titled Wikipedia:Showing notability (a la Wikipedia:Citing sources), with WP:N reserved for a descriptive treatment of how the term is used and misused across Wikipedia.  Just a random thought. -- Visviva 14:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid your answer hasn't really clarified "practically defined" and its alternatives.  Which of a) practical "primary notability criterion", b) notability as it is in the subguidelines or c) on Wikipedia generally is Wikipedia:Notability?  Could you please clarify the remaining two definitions of Notability and how they relate to Wikipedia:Notability? John Dalton 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. are subguidelines under the umbrella of Wikipedia:Notability. Parts of these subguidelines and the concept of notability generally are not directly based on sources, though sources are naturally discoverable when topic is notable. There might be a better name, but "Breadth of sources" and "Objectivity of sources" are not sufficient, and "Multiplicity, independence, and non-triviality of reliable published sources" is not a good name. —Centrx→talk • 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Verifiability is good enough. Trollderella 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that we also want NPOV, lack of copyvio, no libel to BLPs and general encyclopedicity. (Radiant) 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, yes, thankfully, we already have plenty of policy to deal with that. I was talking about the elements of this that relate to documentation of sources. Trollderella 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability is about facts or specific information. Notability is about topics. For example, it would not make sense to have the section about Merging topics in Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer and Exempt Stubs 

message: Jeff Pulver's entry was recently deleted.  
How the co-founder of Vonage could be considered non-notable is beyond me. 
This campaign is counterproductive at best, mean-spirited at worst. Wikipedia is not diminished by an abundance of information. Indeed, I've found that Wikipedia's value is not necessarily in providing information on the "notable" topics - I have Brittanica for that! Indeed, it is the "long tail" of non-notable people, places, things, and ideas that make Wikipedia what it is, and in my case, it has been a useful (though by no means authoritative) tool in journalistic research. I recreated the page and left my contact information there in the hope that someone will contact me to explain why the post is "speedily deleted" before doing so.
Brian Boyko, Editor, Network Performance Daily
Former Associate Editor, Daily Texan
Former Associate Editor, HardOCP Consumer
:The article Jeff Pulver is still there. -- Visviva 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was speedy deleted (log) as an A7, and then recreated, and at the time of this posting, it's been blanked.  I'm not sure what's going on with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's his only claim to fame then it may warrant merging to Vonage. There were no sources in that article. —Centrx→talk • 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WTF has 'fame' got to do with it. We can write a verifiable, well sourced article - we should not deny access to this information because we don't think it is 'famous'. Trollderella 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think anyone is arguing otherwise, here.  For this and any other article, the question is: are there sufficient independent sources to allow a verifiable well-sourced article of plausible length to be written.  If so -- and the current text of Jeff Pulver is less than encouraging -- it should stay; if not, a merger (per Centrx) is probably the most appropriate.  -- Visviva 08:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more, merging the content to Vonage, as Centrx suggested, wouldn't deny anybody access to anything.  It would lead to a redirect.  We're just talking about where the information goes, not whether we keep it. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Problems with Notability. 

message: ::moved from User talk:Centrx
At you changed "reliable sources" to "published sources," but a published source may be pretty unreliable. Supermarket tabloids, vanity press and journals of fringe groups are all published. This change may stir up some fights on talk pages when editors use it to support their reliance on dubious but "published" sources. Regards. Edison 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published=reliable? 

message: That the first two sentences of the notability guideline be changed to:
"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one non-trivial published work whose sources are independent of the subject itself. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia."
This proposeal contains two changes:
1) The word "multiple" in the first sentence is replaced by "At least one", since "multiple" does not mean the same thing to all people, and is therefore not measurable.
2)  The word "Some" in the second sentence is changed to "All", since there are no topics on which Wikipedia allow non-notable subjects.
Discuss.
Librarylefty 07:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Multiple" means more than one (not at least one) - I don't think there's much ambiguity about the word, so is it worth changing it? I agree that "some" should be changed to "all"; since this is only a guideline, it's already apparent that it might not always need to be followed. Trebor 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh???  "some" should be "all" since it might not always need to be followed??? 70.101.147.224 22:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Depending on the reliability of the sources in question, two sources is probably not enough for accuracy. Depending on how comprehensive the sources are, two sources may not be enough to make a sufficiently complete article anyway. —Centrx→talk • 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I always understood multiple to merely mean more than one, and be used as a safecheck in case one newspaper (for instance) published something unusually trivial - the second source confirms it has some interest. Obviously, it depends on the depth of coverage, and whether there is enough information to write an article from, but as a minimum I thought it mean two. If it doesn't, then the wording really needs to be changed. Trebor 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second source needs to have done some research on it. If a single news story is published by the Associated Press and then propagated to several newspapers, that is not multiple independent sources. The problem with "at least one" is that it tries to pinpoint some exact number that may not necessarily be appropriate considering the other criteria. You cannot have a computationally "measurable" guideline that could handle all the cases found in the millions of possible topics and the millions of possible sources. —Centrx→talk • 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the use of "multiple" in the PNC needs to be explained better, as it's pretty unclear. Or perhaps independent could mean sources independent from each other, as well as from the subject matter. Trebor 11:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about, "more than one", or "at least two"? But that's what "multiple" means, anyway... 70.101.147.224 22:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple has this meaning, and the problem with "more than one" or "at least two" is it puts inappropriate stress on the exact number, when the reliability of the sources is more important and relevant to the number necessary. This is somewhat like the distinction between "there is an element in the set" and "there exists an element in the set". —Centrx→talk • 01:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an extended explanation on the page now, which has made it a bit clearer. Trebor 08:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to notability guideline

message: There don't seem to be any. If the general guidelines are used, then even the most obscure low-budget film has probably been the subject of some trade paper story: is this "non-trivial"? Should Wikipedia be working towards an imdb-like database of all film? Or should there be a requirement of mention in non-trade publications? Dybryd 22:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem you run into here is that "it's useful" is not a good way to build an encyclopedia.  How-to guides and manuals are also useful, but they're not allowed on Wikipedia because there's another, better place for them (even though some people are lazy and don't want to navigate there) - Wikibooks.  Dictionary definitions are also useful on their own, but having them in an encyclopedia will clutter it.  ColourBurst 00:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how that relates to two points I made?Lakinekaki 00:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People consider Wikipedia a credible source. If it were just sourced from promotional text, each such article would need to be preceded by a warning "This is based entirely on the promotional advertising of the producer. It is likely to be inaccurate or misleading." to which people will respond, "Why even read this in the first place?". For the many articles without sources, they will need sources. Some of them can never have them and need to be deleted, others just need references and citations added to the article. It may be appropriate to have a different deletion system, where there is a longer probationary period to allow sources to be found and added, and then a stricter, objective deletion decision based entirely on there being such sources and their reliability, etc. —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about leaving a page there, but either cleaning up any non-objective text? When it comes to media - film, tv, print, and even web content, the notability criteria seems to be a little too strict, and things are delete as non-notable when they really ARE useful and informative articles. Shouldn't notability be just ONE criteria for keeping an article, and not the sole reason for deleting one? TomXP411 06:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with that attitude is that it does not distinguish between promotional hype and actual information. "The greatest film of all time!" is a statement of opinion whether it comes from the film's producers or an acclaimed film critic. "The film is a coming of age tale set in feudal Japan." does not become any LESS verifiable (using any meaningful definition) if it comes straight from the film's makers. The studio which produced the movie has no more reason to dissemble about its subject matter than anybody else. Wikipedia doesn't lose credibility for taking the studio's word that a movie is a battlefield epic or a romantic comedy starring Reese Witherspoon. This institution seriously shoots itself in the foot with its "No Original Research Because This Is An Encyclopedia And Encyclopedias Don't Do Original Research" stance here... why does something as innovative and new as Wikipedia once was have to be forever mired in me-too syndrome? Last I checked, encyclopedias also don't exist online and don't allow anybody to edit them... encyclopedias have highly limited page counts, limited number of staff working on them, etc. Wikipedia has none of those limitations and shouldn't be bound by the limitations of what an encyclopedia is that only arose out of them, if it's going to maintain any sort of relevance. That's the perspective all these conversations on notability guidelines seems to be missing... because any conversation about the notability requirements comes back to the severe misuse of the term "verifiability" and the seriously flawed discussion of what Wikipedia is and isn't. Here's one for the list: Wikipedia is NOT like anything that came before and ends up looking foolish when it tries to act like it is. In the long run, that's going to be what loses this thing its credibility. 68.13.21.225 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the notability requirements for films?

message: I apologize for the tardiness, but well done to all for including the explanation that notability does not fade with time.  That's another frequent error that needed addressing. Uncle G 13:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." just gets dropped out the window if it allows something to be quashed as "non-notable." Was the Epic of Gilgamesh actually any more notable than any other stories from its time period that didn't happen to have their tablets survive and be found by successive ages? Could anybody at the time have predicted that Shakespeare's rather vulgar and silly little entertainments would be taught to schoolchildren on every inhabited continent? How exactly does one judge notability to be "permanent", in the absence of a time machine? It's probably not a good idea to add every little fad as soon as it's a blip on the radar, but look at it this way: the print edition of a traditional encyclopedia will cover some topics that future generations will no longer consider worthy of space. When that time comes, the next edition to be issued will no longer cover that topic. Wikipedia's web-based model doesn't have "editions" but "edits." If somthing is notable for the time being, why shouldn't it be covered for the time being, and removed from future editions? That's how the "real encyclopedias" that Wikipedia seems so hell-bent on emulating handle it. 68.13.21.225 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanence 

message: I'm curious what people think about Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress. As I describe in an entry I just made on the article's talk page, I'm concerned that the article as it currently stands has a POV or notability problem, not so much because of individual statements in the article, but because of the length and detail of the article's coverage. I think the underlying event should probably be treated as a minor attempt by a single conservative radio personality to stir up a controversy when there actually isn't much of a controversy there. Actually, I think the current coverage of the controversy in Keith Ellison (politician) is probably about as much coverage as the story deserves. I'm curious what other people think. Thanks. -- John Callender 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the notability rule the primary criterion for notability is whether or not enough reliable, verifiable information exists to proudce a sufficient, neutral article. The length of the article is not a problem unless much of the "lengthiness" comes from unsourced or low-quality (ie. non-reliable) sources, in which case it could become original research and/or biased material, which should not be here on Wikipedia. So in judging the notability, you should figure out how much non-trivial reliable published coverage there is, ie. how well it satisfies that Primary Notability Criterion(TM). 70.101.147.224 05:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if there is sufficient information from which to write an article, then there's no reason for an article not to be written. If it was only a section in a different article then undue weight might be an issue, but since it's an article in its own right, that's not relevant. It comes back to subjectivity, I feel: while you (and others) might think it doesn't merit such a lengthy entry, that is based on a personal opinion of its importance. If enough people have noted information about it to construct an article, then it becomes notable, and (providing the sources are reliable) in this case it seems to be true. Trebor 08:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't say it did merit a long entry, nor did I say it merited only a short one. I said it depends on the amount of verifiable information that is available, and how much we can proportion the views to avoid giving them that undue weight in accordance with our NPOV policy. But that is an issue of NPOV, not of WP:N. 70.101.147.224 19:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the length of the article seems way out of proportion to the topic it is covering, and that the tone and style of the writing doesn't seem very encyclopedic.  But I don't see any blatent violation of policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV.  -- 
RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it doesn't violate policy, what's the problem with it being long? 74.38.35.171 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking as one who likes to read, the more facts the better. As long as the person is reporting verifialbe facts, why not let it be as long as necessary? The longer the better. "WIki is not paper", and a longer article may help people's understanding of an issue. To me, that's the most important factor when it comes to coverage of controversial issues. -TomXP411 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a very long article about a minor controversy a violation of of the notability guideline? 

message: Hi, I have a question regarding notability of articles that talk about little known theories. 
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. Does this mean that it is enough that the topic was discussed in independent sources, or does it mean that each statement within the article has to be covered by independent sources? Lakinekaki 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is only referring to the topic of an article, not each individual statement. There is a concept frequently found on Wikipedia (e.g. in WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a source about something being "relevant to the topic's notability". For example, is not necessarily important in an article about a politician to include his stamp-collecting hobby, but if there is something important about his political history that an editor has (currently) only found on his Senate website, then it can be appropriate to include that in the Wikipedia article, at least until a better source is found. For "little known theories", it is safe to say that a theory that has not been evaluated by independent sources should not be included in Wikipedia, but depending on the situation it might be best to refer to Wikipedia:No original research, which was originally conceived to address crank physics theories, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 07:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about notability of articles VS notability of statements.  

message: I am not finding a specific guideline that establishes google hits or any other search engine criteria as valid demonstration of non-notability, although it is being quoted constantly at Articles for Deletion (AfD) as though it was a hard-and-fast rule.  I see high google hits as a way to suggest notability, but absence is not proof of non-notability.  If I am right, then I think this should be explained at Notability so that it can be referenced from AfD discussions. --Kevin Murray 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're probably no where close to a consensus on Google hits.  Many, like me, think it is vastly over-rated, and one should use it to find sources, not use it as a source.  Note, many use it very different to how you do, in they use lack of hits to justify deletion, but consider lots of hits insignficant.  Most users of Google hits are unaware of how easily its manipulated.   They're also unaware of certain basic limits in the numbers it returns (some restrictions exists, partly for technical reasons, and partly for proprietary reasons, to stop automated "stealing" of results).  Any way, we have a means of measuring notability with "multiple non-trivial sources", and don't need Google hits.   --Rob 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Google hits in themselves doesn't show notability or not - obviously it depends on what the links are. That said, a low number of Google hits show that the chances of finding a reliable online source are low, and vice versa. So an argument saying, "I couldn't find any sources for subject x and the low number of Google hits for x suggests there won't be any", is alright, but an argument based purely on numbers could easily be flawed. They're an indication of sources (and therefore notability), but shouldn't be used on their own. Trebor 19:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I'm looking to add is a statement saying something similar to: "Low Google-hits are not a justification to assume lack of notability." --Kevin Murray 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For modern popular culture and some specific subjects, lack of hits does mean lack of notability. If computer software has a low number of Google hits, or if a pop band established in 2005 in the U.S. has a low number of Google hits, you can be pretty sure that the topic is not notable and that reliable sources are not going to be found for it. If there are a high number of hits on these, however, that does not necessarily mean that the topic is notable, or if the topic is a Medieval author the low number of Google hits is probably meaningless. —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think lack of hits can only ever suggest lack of notability. While it's unlikely, there could be a very small number of hits but within them are ones that satisfy the PNC. In relation to the page, perhaps a link to WP:GOOGLE should be included (that page is purportedly a guideline, although I'm slightly dubious as to whether there was consensus, or it was an accident). Trebor 00:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem there is how people define a "low number".  There are so many web spammers, racking up huge numbers of Google hits; that people look at these numbers, and see them as the "norm".  Then people falsely think anything in the hundreds is "low".  Also, some people, to avoid "spam", focus on unique hits, which is sort-of ok, except they don't realize that it's always <=1000 in Google (even Microsoft).  Once, when trying to find what threshold somebody was using, I found they were using a standard that even Microsoft doesn't meet (they thought at-least 2000 *unique hits was needed).  --Rob 13:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Qualified support: I think it should be even stronger, per Trebor's and Trivierr/Rob's comments above.  That is, I Support at least this phrase if not a more strongly-worded one being added, and xref'd to WP:GOOGLE. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this only if we remind people of the converse-"A high number of Google hits are not proof of notability." I've seen several subjects which return tons of Google hits (even discounting similarly-named things), but all of those are to blogs, forums, and the like. Something is notable when multiple reliable sources cover it, not when a bunch of forum users decide it makes a cool flavor of the week. Seraphimblade 05:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please discuss, not vote with bold text.  That aside, I don't think this is the appropiate place for any drill-down on Google hits... Let it go on the relevent page, leaving this one free from both "too few means..." and "lots may not mean." - brenneman 05:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to notability guideline - Google Hits 

message: I'm glad this is a guideline now (again ?), but should the main criterion not really explicitly require reliable independent sources, as required by WP:V? Otherwise, my current reading is that extensive independent coverage solely by internet ephemera like nonnotable blogs, forum posts etc. constitutes notability, and I'm quite sure we don't want that. Also, why does a guideline link to (and practically incorporate) an essay, WP:INDY? Sandstein 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "...independent of the subject itself and each other" here, but it is not linked to the essay and the essay does not currently describe that independence. —Centrx→talk • 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:INDY does not mention mutual independence because it is concerned with independence for NPOV and V purposes, whereas we look at independence from a notability standpoint. It makes some sense to state (as I think the "independent from each other" criterion now does) that, say, five consecutive newspaper columns from eminent editorialist N.N. don't amount to much in the way of notability if no-one else has mentioned the subject in print, even though the newspaper columns may be reliable sources. But we should possibly clarify the scope of the mutual independence: If, say, two NYT articles by different writers cover the subject, are they too "dependent" on one another because they are published by the same newspaper? Sandstein 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should move this essay into WP space? ~ trialsanderrors 10:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to, but that essay's notability criterion (10 "articles" from 5 "different sources") strikes me as rather too strict to gain consensus as a guideline. It also doesn't address in any detail what's meant by "different sources", i.e., what exactly mutual independence means. Sandstein 11:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It strikes me as rather arbitrary and focused on exactly the sort of thing that an encyclopedia is not: a digest of news. If there are four (or nine) books written by established professional historians on a topic, the topic is certainly notable despite the rule of thumb, while a passing news story can have 10 different articles but may only warrant a single sentence in the article on the main subject. —Centrx→talk • 11:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree: it's too strict and rather arbitrarily set. Aside from the multiple criterion, notability should be judged by depth of coverage. Trebor 11:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being half-facetious. I'm fairly sure it won't get approval, that's why I called it a non-essay. It's also older than Uncle G's On Notability essay, so some of the thinking that happened here isn't reflected in it. Maybe I should mark it s "kept for historical interest"... ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources? 

message: I see about 2 billion links for the "Swedish version" of this page in the "other languages" bar on the left side. However, click on any one of those links, it takes you to this nonsense page. It also appears on several notability pages. I've been trying to get rid of those incorrect links, but I can't find the link to the page within the source. Furthermore, it seems these links first appeared in this version that was edited by an admin Uncle G. This is wierd, how can I elemnate those links to that incorrect foreign page? RiseRobotRise 08:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved, I found out that | Template:fn seem to be the culprit behind that bad language links, so I removed them all. Its deprecated, so removing it shouldn't have any negative effects on the article. This problem should also be fixed on any other pages that may include this template. RiseRobotRise 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Language page: Svenska

message: I've seen (and been involved in) a number of AfD's lately where the following argument has played out:
* This subject is non-notable
** Here's a list of references to the subject from independent sources to prove it meets WP:N
*** No, they don't count, those sources are all topic-specific
The question in my mind is, What makes an independent source?.  Clearly, it has to be a source not under the control of the subject, but does it also have to be a general-interest source, or does a topic-specific source count?  For example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sailboat Hall of Fame (currently in progress).  There have been several sailing magazines cited which have made reference to the subject.  That proves that the subject is notable within the sailing community.  Is that enough?  A higher standard would be that it had received attention outside of the sailing community; that there were sources from the general press which had written about the subject.  Is that higher standard reasonable, or that going too far?  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's notable enough. The notability guideline is deliberately broad in the sources it allows - they just need to reliable and published. There shouldn't be any need to appeal to a wider audience (as an imperfect analog, consider a scientific theory - it is not well-known outside of the scientific community, but surely must be considered encyclopaedic). I don't think there is a need to make sure each article is notable to a general audience, so long as the sources provided meet the other criteria. Trebor 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If we were to declare that substantial coverage by reliable special interest publications isn't enough for notability, then we're no longer editing an encyclopedia, but a lexicon of popular culture. A great many subjects in the sciences and the humanities are be best (and maybe only) covered by articles in specialised scientific publications, whose "community" of readers and editors is maybe a few thousand people. Sandstein 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of this particular example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sailboat Hall of Fame, a quick cursory search at my library turned up half a dozen articles in the outdoors sections of newspapers. I've added the best two to the article.  For a popular pastime like sailboating, it's not unreasonable to expect there to be sources from the general press on something like a Hall of Fame. We're not talking about obscure, complex scientific concepts only understood by the readers of specialised journals. -- Dragonfiend 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of notability 

message: If an article is questioned for lack of notability, should such notice also appear on pages in other languages (for the same article)? Is there any valid reason to delete a page for lack of notability, but have a page in another language remain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Subanark (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not have control over the wikis in other languages. Certainly it can be useful to see if another language wiki has a well-sourced article on the subject, but decisions on the English Wikipedia do not dictate other projects. Other wikis may have more stringent requirements for notability, others less, though in general they all must be "encyclopedias". It might be profitable to consider whether a topic for which there are no English-language sources whatsoever could possibly be notable enough for the English Wikipedia, but even there we are probably looking at more of a Wikipedia:Reliable sources issue. —Centrx→talk • 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto what Centrx said - communities will have implemented notability guidelines in different ways. Trebor 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Across Languages 

message: I am right now participating in two rather controversial AfDs. The first one is the most controversial, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortana. It was initiated by me. The second is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods (fifth), not initiated by me.
The discussions rely primarily on the interpretation of WP:N (and WP:FICT) guidelines. In the Cortana AfD, it is argued by one side that as a major character in a notable franchise she is notable in herself per WP:FICT and so the article should be kept. On the other side, my side, it is argued that the "primary notability criterion" (a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself) outranks subject-specific notability guidelines, especially considering it's position in the first line of WP:N, and so the article should be deleted/merged somewhere else as Cortana is not the subject of published works, but rather Halo is and Cortana is mentioned.
In the [[RuneScape gods AfD, it is argued that while the "primary notability criterion" may outrank subject-specific notability guidelines, that is irrelevant as it does not explicitly mention "articles", but rather "topics". As RuneScape gods is a part of the indeed notable topic of RuneScape, although an independent article, the article should then be kept. The other side, again my side, argues that as RuneScape gods is the topic of the article on them, an establishment of the notability of the RuneScape gods is required in order for the article to be kept.
So:
# Does the "primary notability criterion" outrank the subject-specific notability guidelines, or, is the article being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself, required by all articles or merely those who do not fall within the subject-specific notability guidelines?
# Does the "primary notability criterion" in using the word "topic" refer to a set of articles under a common umbrella, or does it refer to the subject of the article itself - in other words, the topic being the article's subject?
Discussion regarding this would be appreciated, as it apparently quite unclear. An emerging consensus should then be proposed be included in the notability guidelines.
All the best, -- Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the subject-specific WP:FICT states that major characters (I don't know how major) should be covered within the article on that work of fiction" except if "an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." An article that consists entirely of sources affiliated with the subject or alternatively unreliable sources is not given "an encyclopedic treatement" and if you were to remove everything from that article that has "an encyclopedic treatment" you would be left with very little. (See also Wikipedia:Verifiability: material without a reliable source"may be challenged or removed by any editor"). So, the subject-specific criteria here is not in conflict with the primary notability criterion, though reasonably we can say that the primary notability criterion, being a strongly solidified Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, does inform what an "encyclopedic treatment" is. So, assuming that Cortana is an important character in the games, then this topic should be merged with Halo (video game series) and similar master articles where appropriate. If having a description of this character is important to having a complete article there, then having material sourced to the games themselves and related non-independent sources is okay, but that supports only what is necessary for having a complete encyclopedia article on the master topic, and does not support a separate article. Runescape gods could be considered under WP:FICT a "List of minor characters" that is folded out from the main topic, but it is currently in a pitifully poorly sourced state. —Centrx→talk • 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions regarding the "primary notability criterion" 

message: this policy be applied to Croats of Slovakia? --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a guideline, not a policy, and it can be applied to any article. If you believe that topic is non-notable (although it looks likely to be notable to me), you can tag it with  and/or ask for sources on the talk page, for a start. Sandstein 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Template:Serbs, Template:Croats and Template:Montenegrins and you'll understand what I mean. This practical madness was unleashed by the creation of the Serbs of Croatia article which ticked off this chain... How can an ethnic group numbering several hundred people (none of which are notable), and forming less than 1% of the country in which it lives (and having no greater historical presence in the state's territory) notable enough to have an article. If it goes like this, it makes me wonder why there isn't a Mongols in South Africa article. --PaxEquilibrium 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no opinion on this, but the principal place to discuss it would be the article talk page. It's probably worthwhile to evaluate every such article on its own merits, based on e.g. WP:V and WP:N. If no sources are forthcoming, you are of course free to nominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that people does have its own website. (www.hr.sk). --PaxEquilibrium 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a first-party source. Notability is determined by how much attention has been garnered by third parties. 74.38.35.171 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can..