Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 4

message: Hi.
You may have noticed my pushes for this becoming "official policy" here, and might wonder why. I thought I'd say. Two reasons:
1. It's used to determine what is and is not kept here, therefore it governs content like a policy even now, so why not call it one?
2. In the Deletion Policy page, there is the following:
"Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:
WP:MUSIC (for bands) 
WP:BIO (for biographies) 
WP:FICT (for fictional characters) 
WP:WEB (for Internet content) 
WP:NEO (for neologisms) 
WP:CORP (for companies and products) "
Those are all notability-related, thus notability is an accepted deletion criterion, and therefore might as well be considered a policy. See? 65.73.219.85 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I keep pushing for this to be "policy". 

message: Per the request and the above discussion, I've merged in the four things that I mentioned above.  I've refactored the two sections "Notability as a reason for merging" and "Notability as a reason for deletion" into a single, common section, and moved several things into footnotes.  The new "Notability is not subjective" section is a slight modification of User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability_is_not_subjective.  This is intended to give you a basis to work from, and to address some of the above talk page discussion.  The idea of secondary notability criteria that "fill in the gaps" has yet to be included. Uncle G 12:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Hi.
I noticed this: "The notability of a subject is judged by the world at large.". But the "world at large" statement seems to imply that the subject is deemed notable by most of the general public, etc. and this is not so. There are things here on Wikipedia that the vast majority of the public know nothing about -- such as Induced gravity, for example. The "world at large" does not necessarily deem this thing notable, yet some part of it does, since some scientists have written very detailed articles on it (ie. the world "at small" did it.). Perhaps this should be rephrased a little, then? The statement seems to imply that it is decided by a very large portion of the world's people, even though this is not always the case. Perhaps something to the effect of "Notability is judged by third parties outside of/beyond Wikipedia" or something like that? 65.73.219.85 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see some clarification being made on that point.  The idea of a subject being judged notable by "the world at large" isn't that any particular proportion of the world deems it notable, just that at least a few people out there in the world (as opposed to here on the Wiki) are publishing papers, books, reviews, etc, about it.  There are certainly multiple, non-trivial published sources discussing Induced gravity, or so it seems from the citations on that article.  Nobody means to suggest that notability means "lots of people know about it", and if the wording could make this point clearer, that would be good. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agreed.  Well put! — Reinyday, 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yep. I might suggest "the rest of the world", "the rest of the world outside Wikipedia", "the people in the rest of the world", "the people in the world outside Wikipedia", or just "the people outside Wikipedia" as better phrasings. "The world at large" suggests a majority of the world is deciding the given subject is notable, when, like with the Induced gravity example, this is not always the case. Policies, semi-policies, guidelines, or other rules should be clear, not muddy. Especially with notability, where one very often gets that feeling that it means "fame" or something like that, when for the purposes of Wikipedia it does not. 65.73.219.85 08:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Oooh! Just noticed something. The whole sentence says this: "The notability of a subject is judged by the world at large. A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable." This is redundant, and should be trimmed. Combining my arguments above, I would suggest this reworded to "The notability of a subject is determined by the people in the world outside Wikipedia.", removing both the redundancy and getting rid of the "fame" implications. Would you agree with this? 65.73.219.85 09:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **I made an edit.  Is it better now? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! Sure is! Thanks a lot! 70.101.147.74 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could this be inaccurate/misleading/etc.? 

message: I have just tried to update this page to reflect current practice and restore a neutral POV.  The article did not make any mention of that fact that nemerous topics do not need to assert their importance, notability, or significance, such as a river or village.  Please let me know if any of my changes are unclear. — Reinyday, 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Hi.
I can't seem to understand why there is so much debate over whether or not notability should be used in deletion. As per Wikipedia's deletion policy, notability *is* a factor to consider when deremining if an article should be deleted, and it seems to have been there for a while, so there has to be some degree of consensus that notability should be used in deletion! Am I right? If so, why all the argument? 170.215.83.83 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on that would be that Wikipedia:Notability may not have as much consensus as some of its staunch supporters believe it does; it has changed a lot over time, and may no longer accurately reflect what the original consensus (however broad it may have been) was about; some question the way it is used (and allegedly abused) in AfD; and some feel that it is controlled too heavily by "deletionists" rather than reflecting a more balanced Wikipedia-wide consensus.  Some are critics of the entire concept of notability as a criterion for article inclusion/deletion at all (die-hard "inclusionists"), while others (like myself) simply have issues with its current implementation and use, and the perhaps inappropriate weight given by AfD-participant admins to notability concerns about articles, when compared with other Guidelines and Policies (AfD is largely dominated by NN-based Delete "votes" at this stage.)  I'm sure that others have their own opinions on your question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, this is just my 2 cents, but I think a big part of it is that "notability" has been understood as a rather subjective criterion by many people.  Many editors have disputed the appropriateness of using a subjective valuation of "importance" to decide inclusion questions.  Subjectivity in our criteria seems to open the door wide to systematic bias, after all.  It certainly makes "notability" deletions easy to argue with, in a way that an objectively stated criterion doesn't.  Just in the last week or so, a lot of edits have been made to the guideline in order to make it more objective, and we hope that there will be less of people making deletion arguments along the lines of "non-notable; I haven't heard of it". -GTBacchus(talk) 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Notability should not equate to "did I hear of it?" There are lots of things here that lots of people haven't "heard" about. That is far too subjective. If carried to it's logical conclusion, Wikipedia would disappear! 170.215.83.83 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note that many deletionist-inclined editors (your truly included) are usually quick to point out on AfD that votes for deletion on the grounds "I've never heard of it" are pretty weak. I would even go as far as saying that the primary criterion is already in use de facto on AfD. Pascal.Tesson 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much debate? 

message: Notable is a synonym for prominent or outstanding. I think this should be pointed out in this policy page. Otherwise, people can put executed criminals, scums, gang leaders as notable alumni on University articles. Miaers 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with listing criminals as notable alumni. JoshuaZ 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Notable", for the purposes of WP, does not necessarily mean "outstanding" or "famous" or whatever. There are things that WP considers "notable" that not many people have heard of. As said on the page, notability is determined by whether or not significant amounts of published material exist on the subject, enough to make a WP article. Obviously, if the crime is very major and impressive, then there would probably be enough documentation made to warrant notability, but you're not going to find every instance of non-disabled people parking in a handicap spot here on Wikipedia!!! If you tried to put in such an article, it would probably get nuked very, very fast. Notability does not mean "prominent" or "outstanding". I would not consider the Empire of Atlantium to be an "outstanding" group by any great stretch, but nevertheless the entry still exists here on Wikipedia, after no less than five deletion attempts. 170.215.83.83 21:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But you're confusing two entirely separate issues here. This page is about a concept used in the deletion process. We use the shortcut notability and use it indifferently whether it's a positive notoriety or not. But of course, you're free to discuss the propriety of saying that a criminal is a notable alumni but that's a discussion for the talk page of Universities, not the present one. My personnal take would be that "notable", while generally used in a positive can also be used more neutrally. Wiktionary says "Worthy of notice". It does not make sense to remove the information that some notorious character was an Alumni, nor does it make sense to have a list of notable alumni and a list of notorious ones (if only because you create debates like is George Bush a notable Yale alumni, a notorious alumni or both?). Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can a criminal be classified as a notable person? 

message: Hi.
I've noticed people disputing whether or not this should be a guideline, but I say it should stay one, as long as notability remains a criterion for inclusion/deletion here on Wikipedia and is used as one (and this is an undisputable fact -- lots and lots of articles are deleted on a daily basis due to lack of notability.). It presents important information about what the term means, and really, "notability" does deserve to be described in detail, to keep the subjectivity down -- we have to be clear that "notability" is not identical to "fame", etc. and is more closely related to verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. 170.215.83.83 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should stay a guideline... 

message: Does anyone think it would be helpful to make the point that, when notability is at issue, arguments need to be looked at in aggregate? For example, a high Google rank alone may not demonstrate notability, but in addition to several other factors it could add credence to an argument? If Google is a sensitive topic remove it from the question: Can notability factors which, in and of themselves, may be questionable, be reconsidered in combination with other arguments?Dgray xplane 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggregation 

message: I randomly encountered this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports:
== Notability ==
Always a controversial topic, I know... but are there any general guidelines as to what constitutes a notable sports club? The particular examples I'm thinking of here are most of the members of the Ontario Australian Football League after Central Blues went from prod to AfD and then got speedy deleted today, but any more general thoughts also appreciated. Cheers --Pak21 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Note also that the Speedy Deletion may have been a violation of both WP:CFD and WP:SD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Central Blues was deleted per this AFD, as endorsed by deletion review. I don't quite see how this deletion was a violation of anything, and note that it wasn't a speedy. (Radiant) 12:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it was. Quote from the AfD: "The result was speedy delete..."  Anyway, as with #Example 2 without seeing the article, it is impossible to show whether the article asserted importance as per A7; I find it unlikely that someone would have gone to the trouble of writing up league, team and player articles without doing so, but I'll concede that I can't prove it at this stage.  The main point of this example was controversy not abuse anyway.  However, see the AfD and note that the article was defended against a prod by a second editor (not Pak21), indicating that there was probably sufficient interest in this article to defend it in a full AfD if it hadn't been speedied, or if the article had been tagged with a WP:V or other warning template before being AfD'd. Note also that one of the NN-boosting delete "voters" indicates "hatred" of the prod Policy (he/she's entitled to any opinion, of course, but I think it's a good example of the "Wikipedia consensus processes aren't mean enough; we need a bludgeon we can really kill articles indiscriminately with" attitude that has infested AfD and lent support for the notion that NN is and should be an actual Guideline.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Hm, interesting - the AFD says "speedy" but the deletion log says "see AFD". Some admins should not use shorthand quite as often. Nevertheless, it was upheld at DRV. Looking over the article, it is an amateur club that "has ambitious goals for it's first three years and is well on the way to meeting them". That sounds like a textbook example of something that intends to be famous but just isn't there yet. I see no grounds for your assertion about meanness and bludgeons; rather, people sometimes complain about the "weakness" of PROD (actually its strength) that any editor can veto it. (Radiant) 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for digging around about it.  I don't spend nearly as much time as some people dealing with AfDs and other disputes, so I find the process tedious and difficult.  It does sound like it transgressed on crystal ball grounds under WP:NOT, but this was most likely a rectifiable fault.  It looks to me like the article either was speedied or those involved believed it to have been, since neither of the articles supporters even posted to the AfD about it and went the DRV and WikiProject Sports routes later.  So, I concede that the deletion probably wasn't a DP violation (while maintaining that if guideline recommendations for handling of deficient articles and articles disputes and deletion processed had been followed in a Wikipedian manner, e.g. using fixit templates at the top of the article, that the article could have been improved enough to survive.  This is a side point I keep returning to, in the larger-than-NN issue of what is wrong with current deletion habits.)  On to the next point, I think you are inadvertently supporting my own argument on this sub-sub-issue: The fact that prod is a strength not a weakness if you understand WP well, and anecdotal evidence of detractors of that policy essentially saying they are using speedy because they "hate" (direct quote) prod, is at least mildly supportive of my contention elsewhere in here that AfD is becoming a sport/pastime/obsession for many, which has nothing to do with making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, but is akin to flamewarring and trolling - a destructive activity for its own sake.  Just an opinion; but I don't think that your pointing out that prod is a strength not a fault undermines any point I'm making; it's a view I share myself.  Lastly, I maintain that principal point of this example, that Notability is controversial and ergo definitionally non-consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *It is possible that some articles are deleted could have survived using fixit templates. It is also possible that some articles with fixit templates are not in fact fixable and should be deleted. Before we stray into appeal to probability, I would want to see better evidence of either; that a process sometimes gets it wrong does not imply that it usually gets it wrong. So far you have anecdotal evidence of one editor disliking PROD, who incidentally mentioned neither speedy nor notability. Some editors dislike PROD, but that does not make PROD controversial. Similarly, some editors dislike NN, but neither does that make NN controversial. (Radiant) 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 1 

message: Here's what appears appeared to be a really egregious case of admin abuse of NN: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_24#Punarama.  There were only two responses to the AfD, which was only just filed, and both of them were nothing but notability claims, as was the orgininal nom, but the article was Speedily Deleted with no explanation.  Aside from the specific topical notability guidelines enumerated as actionable under Policy at WP:DEL, non-notability alone is not deletion-actionable in and of itself.  Even the WP:DEL-blessed notability criteria do not justify Speedy Deletion, and neither do the WP:SPEEDY deletion criteria!  If something else justified Speedy Deletion it should have been recorded in the deletion log at the link above. I haven't even seen the article, but if the only identified problem with it (and it is in fact the only recorded one) was that the nominator thought it was "non-notable comics" then this article should be undeleted immediately and subject to a full AfD. I have raised the issue on the Talk page of the admin.  I think it is also notable (no pun intended) that the admin didn't even post his own SD notice and templates, but rather another user, who seems to work with him and others to nuke articles, and who voted for SD on this, posted it for him — a user who appears again and again and again nominating things for SD on notabilty grounds (a user who is seeking admin status, which scares me, and is a regular NP patroller and such, which is probably a good thing given his level of activism, even if some of it is misdirected).  So, there's your evidence of both "AfDaholics" who use AfD as a sport/pastime, and admin collusion with (not just sloppy handling of) grossly improper deletions.  Note also that the AfD immediately below this one only narrowly escaped precisely the same fate [?]for precisely the same reasons</font>.  I didn't even look farther to see how many more there were.  I found this in just two minutes of looking for stuff like it in AfD, just in today's log.  Frankly I'm not interested in any more "you gotta give us examples or we won't believe you" stuff here.  Just go look.  It'll take you all longer to write me another "give us proof" message than it will to just go see for yourselves how NN is being abused in what appears to be unmistakable WP Policy violation.  I'm not sure how this is supposed to be any different from the vandalism everyone is so up in arms about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deleting admin should have been a bit clearer about this - but it is known that speedy deletion trumps AFD. This appears to have been a case of CSD criterion A7 - indeed, it is a webcomic that has ran for less than a month. I don't quite see how it is wrong that some user tagged it as such and another user deleted it (indeed, that would be better than a single person doing all the work, since now at least two people have looked upon it). (Radiant) 12:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Difficult to verify; I have formally requested (under WP:GDFA) that the article be moved into my userspace so that it can be examined.  I'll report the results as they come up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 2 

message: Hi.
I discovered something while looking through some AfD discussions:
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dodd middle school
Yes, the year is 2004, not 2006, and yes that was the world "notable" there in bold text. Somebody else in there said "delete, not evidence of notability". What do you think? Obviously this thing has been used in deletion for quite a while now (over 2 and a half years), so what do you think should be done? Just a little more fuel to toss on this roaring bonfire :) 70.101.147.74 05:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being...?  Of course "notability" existed and was used as a concept here before the earliest(?) notability essays/proposals were being drafted.  People don't write essays and proposals, generally, about concepts that no one's thought of in the Wikipedia context before.  We don't see any proposals like Wikipedia:Assassination of vandals and their families or Wikipedia:Only registered voters deserve articles, do we?  :-/  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was more flippant-looking than I intended it; sorry.  Disrespect wasn't intended.  Substantively: I again (3rd time? I may well just go set it up myself...) propose a WikiProject: Notability consensus to deal with the issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, how would such a project be different from this talk page? Second, as stated above, guidelines are generally made by writing down existing practice, not by some legislative-sounding committee. (Radiant) 12:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think WikiProjects sound "legislative" at all; to me they are inspirational of teamwork and consensus-building.  There isn't any policy reason that what needs to be done couldn't be done here, but the historical record is not encouraging.  The main problem is that this page is about this Essay/Proposal/Guideline, not about the issue/need in general. A WProj on the topic would almost necessarily be more balanced/open.  And the main page of it, if structured the way wikiprojects typically are, wouldn't be the text of such a document, but rather an introduction to the topic and a collection of resources.  Right now, there really isn't a way to get handle on the notability debate other than by coming here to this talk page and reading for a long time, then going to WP:NNOT and reading there for a long time, and then digging around in history and (if lucky) discovering the Fame and Importance talk page, the Importance talk page, etc., etc., etc.  It's a very exclusionary situation because few people who actually care a whole lot about the issue will bother to do that much digging around, not to mention those more new to the topic.  Anyway, I'm not insisting that this be handled by a new WikiProject, I'm just saying it might be a good idea. If I were insistent about it I'd already have put up a proposal in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I feel fairly strongly that this should happen, but I have other things to do on WP, and off of WP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The point? The point is that notability has existed in some form and a guideline on it overall should still exist, even if the present WP:N/WP:NN guideline isn't it. 70.101.147.74 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've said several times here, we already have a process for this, in Policy; no new Guideline needed.  As Notability Guidelines that cover particular topics (bands & musicians, for example; the one on books is well on the way to getting there; meanwhile cue sports is a new one I'm the principal editor of so far, that is just at the beginning of the process) or that cover types of articles (e.g., biographies), rise to such a level of consensus that they are uncontroversially generally accepted, then they are imported directly into Policy, at WP:DP.  There's no adequately explained rationale for going around that process and creating a murky WP-wide version of notability that isn't flexible enough to handle different topics'/article types' notability needs (I can go into some examples of how those differ from topic to topic if necessary, but I think it's pretty self-evident just by comparing a few of the extant topical guidelines included in WP:DEL as actionable). Thus I oppose creating a WP-wide version of notability, and instead support the WP-traditional process of formation of specific and scope-limited notability guildelines and their progressive importation into the WP:DEL Policy. I think this conflict of notability models is quite large, and would probably be the main initial item of discussion in the aforementioned "WikiProject Notability consensus" should such a thing come to exist.  NB: I also think such a WProj could help craft a guideline about creating Notability Guidelines of that sort; I think this is needed, and that WP:NN emphatically isn't it (WP:NN by contrast attempts to trump them all, and to controvert Policy [namely WP:DEL and especially WP:V] to boot.  It is in conflict with everything else on the topic — the main reason I think that a WProj would be more useful than continuing to try to resolve the WP-wide issue in here.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does WP:NN try to trump all the other guidelines, and how is it so restrictive compared to them? Is it because it has only a single criterion for notability, and some things that might be difficult to meet that criterion could still be notable? (look at WP:MUSIC for example. It has the WP:NN "primary criterion" in there, but there are also other criteria that a piece of music could still be deemed notable if it satisified, while not satisfying the "primary criterion" in WP:NN and thus under that guideline (WP:MUSIC, not WP:NN) alone it would still be notable?) I just don't quite understand this. 70.101.147.74 03:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would set a Wikipedia-wide standard for what constitutes "notable".  I didn't say it was more restrictive than all of them (though it would be in some cases, and less restrictive in others), only that it sets a blanket standard that would be imposed on everything instead of there being a different consensus on different topics/types of articles because they have different notability needs.  For example, it has been suggested that every mountain on earth is notable, simply by virtue of the fact that it exists.  In this case the requirement for multiple sources seems unwarranted, as a single "reputable, non-trivial" atlas can be used to demonstrate that the mountain exists.  In sports, however, having 50 sources demonstrate that a player exists may not mean that the player is notable, only that they exist, since it does not speak to any accomplishments, importance, notoriety, etc., etc.  It's not that the name or even particularly the wording of WP:NN is wrong; the problem is that would be inflexible. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me that anybody wants this page to set "a blanket standard that would be imposed on everything instead of there being a different consensus on different topics/types of articles because they have different notability needs".  In fact, I'm for the notability guideline, but against that.  That's not how I see the guideline working at all.  I suspect you're savaging an unintentional straw man there.  You say "the problem is that would be inflexible" - why would it necessarily?  What if it were explicity made flexible, and explicitly only applicable in cases where there isn't already a subject-specific guideline?  I've always thought of the general notability criterion as being trumped by more specific ones; who ever suggested that it be otherwise? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I was thinking too -- the general criterion is here for when the subject we are dealing with is not covered by any other guidelines. Ultimately, if and when every concievable flavor of topic has a guideline it would no longer be necessary. 70.101.147.74 07:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Interesting point. However, hwo does this "setting a WP-wide standard" relate to the subjectivity thing? 170.215.83.4 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say they're basically unrelated.  The question of whether this guideline is intended to supersede subject-specific guidelines is entirely separate from the question of whether this guideline is to be understood objectively or subjectively.  I'd also say that the "blanket guideline" concern is a red herring; as far as I can see, nobody's even suggesting that the general guideline should trump particular ones, and common sense dictates that particular notability criteria trump general ones. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think it should necessarily supersede the additional guidelines where they exist, rather it provides a criterion to use when no others are available. I also don't see why the criterion given is "totally and completely subjective" as one guy I debated with claimed. 170.215.83.4 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't, but I used to be more subjective - "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact" - which is a pretty terrible definition, relying on subjective value judgements about what "should be" well known.  There's also the problem of people applying subjective notability criteria in deletion discussions, and claiming this guideline as justification.  As more and more people find out that we've finally hammered down a useful definition of notability, that should lessen, I think. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I think part of the problem might be the "load" of the term "notability" (ask any old average Joe on the street what they think the term "notability" means and they'll probably say "fame" or "publicity" or something like that. I'd bet $1000 they'd say something like that.), and the hangover from only recently having given a WP-related definition of the term, as seen on this page (WP:N). The use in WP:AFD discussions with various criteria that aren't stated anywhere -- like "Oh, only 70 Ghits, NN, D" even though there's no 70-Google-hit limit anywhere, NUKE, N, CSD, V, ANYWHERE!!! I think ultimately people need to drop their own subjective definitions and use only ones that are explicitly stated. No matter how solid and clear the definition is here, if people don't apply it, it is worthless. 170.215.83.4 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best thing we can do for this guideline now is to promote our new, clear, objective definition of notability.  The more people repeat that "notability means having non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources," the more it'll stick.  We tend to like clear definitions; we just have to hear about them before we can apply them. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  However, why must they be "important" or "famous" or whatever, if those 50 sources are detailed enough in their reporting (ie. not just 50 passing mentions of the person's name but real actual info) to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article then they should be included on WP, notice that the "multiple indepedent sources" criterion is one of the "proves notability" ones on WP:BIO and not just WP:N (in fact it's on every approved WP notability guideline!)? Or did you already mean that? 170.215.83.4 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *As per Bacchus, I don't see anyone arguing for this page to become a blanket standard. Indeed, this page calls for the creation of more specific standards such as the already existing WP:BIO. (Radiant) 13:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! 170.215.83.4 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little more fuel for the fire? 

message: We say, a subject is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.  The problem is, that begs the question of what non-trivial means.  I'm thinking specifically of the thousands of giveaway trade publications whose articles consist mostly of thinly-disguised press releases.  I don't think those count as non-trivial or independent.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline says, "The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable)."  I'm not familiar with the publications you're talking about, but it sounds like you could make a case against there being independent coverage, if that's all there is.  Maybe this has come up before, and some precedent has been established? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can speak from experience that many trade publications accept articles from companies unequivically. Due to limited budgets they will accept an article from a company and simply republish it. However, it's not always easy to judge which is which. It's not a black-and-white thing as much as a spectrum. But I think discounting certain trade publications could be a legitimate argument.Dgray xplane 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This also begs a question to which I have been giving a lot of thought but have seen limited mention on Wikipedia. What about blogs and other "online-only" media? Many freelance journalists publish articles and opinion on their blogs. Blogs run the gamut from highly respected to pure junk. A mention by a columnist in a major publication would probably be considered meaningful -- and that's one person's opinion. A blog could carry the same or more weight. How do we evaluate the credibility of a blog? Dgray xplane 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *This is more a matter for WP:RS, but in general we do not consider blogs and wikis to be credible. There are a few exceptions, e.g. blogs known to be written by an expert, or wikis with many contributors and significant stability. (Radiant) 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do "non-trivial" and "independent" mean? 

message: Let me know if people think this is a red herring, but what do people think of bringing cognitive bias into the conversation? There are many cognitive traps and it's easy to fall into them. It seems that cognitive bias can often cause arguments/discussions to spin out of control. I think if people felt like it was acceptable to cite these as well as official policy it could enhance the dialogue. Or do people think this would simply fan the flames? Does this sound naive? Curious to hear people's thoughts on this. Dgray xplane 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know more specifically what you're talking about.  What kind of cognitive bias? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm not talking about any specific kind. I am just suggesting that general knowledge of the subject could be helpful in unravelling some of the conversations and debates. Probably the most important one to consider is the bias blind spot, or, the bias that "I have no bias."Dgray xplane 05:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Example of what I mean: I have read talk about Wikipedians falling into "deletionist" and "inclusionist" categories. What I have actually observed is a system dynamic that might also be described as "argumentationists" vs. "co-creationists," which is more about a debate vs. conversational approach to decision-making. The reason I am proposing a conversation about bias is not as much a topic proposed for debate as it is a proposal for a meaningful conversation that might increase general "social literacy" and decrease the friction in many of these conversations. Realizing that Wikipedia talk:Notability is probably the wrong venue for this -- can anyone suggest a venue that might be a good place to initiate this kind of conversation?Dgray xplane 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure if I follow you. "debate" and "conversation" sounds like the same thing to me, and many Wikipedians do not pigeonhole people as foo-ionists and consider this dichotomy to be harmful. I think your best bet for such a conversation would be the village pump. (Radiant) 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Ok.  I have been reading through this talk page for a while now.  I have also found that the MULTITUDINOUS number of individulized notability guidelines in the works (schools, comedy, music, porn, etc. etc.) actually work against their purpose.  The point of a guideline is to make it easier to discern potential problems and avoid or correct them.  Most (though not all) of these subject-based notability guideline make it harder, not easier, to establish notability.  The entire set should be reduced to the primary notability criteria, except in cases where specific exceptions are needed, like the WP:CORP exceptions... The reasons for this are as follows:
*In order to appear in a wikipedia article, any fact must be referenced to a reliable source.  "Forbes magazine notes that XYZ corp is the top producer of widgets in the U.S." and not "Johnny Doe on the widget fan forum says 'I dig XYZ widgets.  They are the best'".  Any facts that are not cross referenced to a reliable source should be removed from an article.
*Facts should be relevent and notable.  Facts such as birthdates, addresses, products for sale, etc. are not in-and-of-themselves notable.  They can, and should, be part of an article that has something else to say on a subject.  But they should NOT be the entirety of the article.  An article could say "XYZ corp is a producer of Widgets.  Their corporate headquarters are located in Anywhere, USA..  It has been named by several publications, such as Forbes, Fortune, and WidgetWorld as the top producer of Widgets in the U.S.  Consumer reports consistantly names their Widgets as the top rated widget in testing.  It is estimated by WidgetWorld that one of XYZ widgets is found in 75% of U.S. housholds."
:but notXYZ corp is a producer of Widgets.  Their corporate headquarters are located in Anywhere, USA.
:If the second entry is ALL WE CAN write about XYZ corp, then XYZ corp can't have an article here.  If there is never any hope of the article expanding beyond this, it should be deleted on notability ground.  Any facts that anyone adds to the second article would and should be deleted as unsourced, and thus the whole article should be deleted.  People get confused, and do not understand this.
*The extraneous notability criteria (for example, if we had one that set an arbitrary limit on some numerical fact, like saying that all schools older than 50 years automatically become notable) it allows for the creation of articles we cannot populate with facts.  If all we can say is "XYZ school was founded in 1947.  It has a capacity of 1000 students.  It is located in Anywhere USA."
:nothing notable is said in this article.  If no references can be found to add facts about this school, we are left with an eternally non-notable article.  If we create a guideline, however, that sets an arbitrary exception to the PNC, people could justifiably argue "keep" for this article in a deletion review, and they would have a policy to back up their claims.
*The ultimate point I am trying to make is that we are trying to make a better encyclopedia here.  If the only written policy people have to fall back on is "Multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources" then they can spend their time finding those references.  If none exist, we can confidently delete the article.  Eliminate the loopholes and endless debate by simplifying the articles.  Then we can reduce the debates to what they should be: A vetting process to determine non-triviality, relevence, and reliable sources, which SHOULD be decided on a case-by-case basis and not spelled out in detail here.  --Jayron32 05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jayron. When you wrote "If the former is ALL WE CAN write about XYZ corp, then XYZ corp can't have an article here" did you mean "the latter?" Your point makes more sense to me when read that way. Just want to determine whether what you wrote was a typo or what you actually intended to say.Dgray xplane 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify, Simplify, simplify 

message: Why is the Kanab ambersnail notable enough for inclusion, despite the fact that they only exist in about two square miles of land in a very small area of the US? 
It seems to me that notability as a standard is not applied evenly. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you site is very notable per the Wikipedia Definition of Notability, otherwise known as the Primary Notability Criteria: It is the subject of independant non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Notability is not about where the particular subject can be found, it is about where writing about the particular subject can be found. The distinction is not moot. Someone outside of wikipedia has cared enough about this snail to write and get the information about it published. Wikipedia's standards make no judgements on whether or not this subject SHOULD be notable, merely that it IS notable, and thus an article about it is accepted. Incedentally, if you were looking for an article to discount the Primary Notability Criteria, this is the among the worst you could have chosen. Keep looking though! --Jayron32 07:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are and will continue to be many reliable published sources on this subject. Also, there are and will continue to be neutral biologists, etc. interested in providing an accurate account of the topic, without fanatic or partisan bias. —Centrx→talk • 07:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. And even if for some reason their weren't accurate published sources, a species is a species. New people can be created, as can new companies, new websites, new whatever. But genetic mutation aside, there's a finite amount of species, beyond human control.  --  Zanimum 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely varying standards 

message: The problem with notability is that it focuses on entire subjects. For example, notability says that an article may be written about something that has received an award or been featured in non-trivial sources, or some such. However, this is the wrong way to go about things. *Information* must be sourced, not subjects. For someone to write about a famous person's birthday, children, favorite vacationing spots - there must be a reliable source to back it up. Just because something won an Emmy doesn't mean people can now write on whatever the hell the want to in its article - everything needs a source. Fresheneesz 09:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything must be sourced? There goes everything ficticious. (Justyn 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are quite a few Wikipedia:Featured articles on fictitious topics; they have no lack of sources. The sources are usually reviews of the work, articles on the work's impact, and interviews with the author(s). Let's see: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - 35 sources. The Lord of the Rings - 50 sources. Heck, Make Way for Ducklings has 20 sources. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ment almost everything, I forgot to type that, I'm only human after all. But, some information that is relevent, and blatantly obvious by simply looking at (such as needing a source to tell that Roronoa Zoro has green hair, when you can tell that just by looking at the picture of him on the page) needing to be sourced? Not every little bit of information needs to be sourced (Zoro having green hair, yes, the fact that he smells like steel, that should be sourced; and is) but anything that that is not blatantly obvious should, indeed be sourced. (Justyn 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd consider a picture to be a source, why not? Fresheneesz 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with notability 

message: Exception to normal Wednabot usage is valid for active project talk pages.  See User talk:Werdna#Werdnabot needed on policy talk page  I asked for clarification on this, and Werdnabot IS being used on non-user talk pages if actity merits it.  It would appear that activity merits it.  Besides, Werdnabot is far more equitable, since it doesn't archive active discussions before people have had a chance to comment on them.  --Jayron32 05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. It archives solely based on time, regardless of whether there have been any responses. —Centrx→talk • 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Time of the first post, or of the most recent? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent, so it won't archive discussions that are active if there are people interested in that topic on the talk page within the given time period (but 7 days is too short for the current level of activity and would have been much too long for the previous level of activity), but if people have not "had a chance to comment on" a post, then we are looking at the first post anyway. —Centrx→talk • 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, as is the case with this page, discussions on regular talk pages often are in spurts, with sudden heavy activity that dies. The bot archives sections unnecessarily regardless of their activity or relevance to active discussion; this is fine when there is high activity because there simply should not be 300KB of comments on a single page for loading every time, but there is no such problem if a talk page is not active and the bot will archive active discussions or discussions that are more relevant to active discussions. I archived the talk page exactly because of the ridiculously huge page that was here; if a talk page is 300KB that needs doing regardless of whether the comments are older or younger than 7 days. New comments can easily be added at the bottom of the talk page, with reference to the old ones; the old comments don't disappear. If the same level of activity continues, the talk page will not need archiving in 7 days. The bot is simply unnecessary yet likely to cause the exact sort of problem that you are adding it to prevent. —Centrx→talk • 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, but if we don't Werdnabot archival, how do we assure that active discussions aren't sumarily moved to the archives even if they get large?  We have a two-fold problem:
#Dead discussions clog the talk page, and must be archived to prevent the page from being too large.
#Contentious and highly active discussions can grow to an unmanagable size as well, but if so, they should not be archived if not resolved.  If we agree to manually archive these discussions with the dead ones, we should only do so for the oldest comments, and not for the entire discussion.  Archiving a discussion effectively ends it prematurely, and it is unsatisfactory to see a discussion disappear entirely, especially if good points continue to be made.
I want to see what others who are active here have to say on this.  I am not sold that Werdnabot is the only way to equitably handle this, but I don't want to see any discussion effectively "deleted" before it reaches a reasonable conclusion.  Any other suggestions out there?  We can also set the Werdnabot archive timeframe to anything we want.  30 days is possible too... I only picked 7 since it seems like that seemed to catch most active discussions.  --Jayron32 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The simple and most common solution is to keep comments short and to the point. If there is a new issue that stems out of previous discussions, bring it up in a new section. It is not difficult to link to previous discussions, or to summarize a point and orient it to the specific topic at hand. There is no need to have a thousand-word essay followed by a thousand-word essay followed by another and another. The last archive is more than 31000 words long, and that doesn't include what remains on this page. That is about a third of the length of a novel. I don't know how much was accomplished in all those words, and it was probably just one person who made up the bulk of it, but I suspect as much could have been accomplished in half the space (and effort); probably, more could have been accomplished by focusing. Simply, there is no reason to introduce fifty issues at once; there is no reason why there should be continuing discussion in the 1st kilobyte as well as continuing active discussion in the 300th kilobyte. I do notice that of all those thousands of words expended on the talk page, only a few dozen were spared for the actual main page, and even some obvious, egregious spelling errors on it were never corrected. If there is really such a lack of any compromise or productive, practical outcomes to set down on the page, it is rather pointless; no one is going to be convinced of the extremes of either "side". As for myself, I am just going to ignore any long rants or anything unrelated to the purpose of this talk page. Bloated essays feed upon loose responses, and multiply. —Centrx→talk • 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice also that at the current rate of growth it would take about 25 days to reach the same talk page length as happened in just 6 days over the course of last week. The bot is not necessary. —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "[...]if actity merits it.  It would appear that activity merits it."  Well that's a very, very convenient viewpoint to espouse when shunting currently-active and unresolved debates onto an archive page so that with the result that discussion and resolution on that topic just stops.  Whatever the rationale, the effect in this particular forum has been markedly negative from a consensus-forming point of view. So for once I'm in concert with Centrx: "The bot is not necessary." :-)  PS: I find it tragically amusing to (from what I can gather from the above) be characterized as being one of "the extremes" when I actually come from a remarkably centrist position on the issue.  Life is funny that way, I guess... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you misread events.  I have been actively unarchiving the discussions because I felt the archiving was being mishandled.  I was looking for a more equitible way to reduce the size of the page, without effectively ending discussions before they reached their conclusion.  When you quote me, be careful to attribute all of my positions to me.  It was other users that moved discussions to talk pages that caused active discussions to stop before resolutions.  It was my actions that returned the discussions here to allow them to remain open.  I support your position 100%, and am against archiving active discussions.  My proposal to bring in Werdnabot was only to allow archival of dead discussions; one cannot accuse Werdnabot of using archival as a way of intentionally killing a discussion they disagreed with the way that one could accuse a human editor of doing the same.  not that I am doing that in any way.  It was intended as a preemptive strike against such feelings, which could have occurred if human-editor-archival was allowed to continue.  --Jayron32 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The archiving was a result of my coming back upon a 350KB page, on a slow computer, which only days before had been a normal talk page. If there are active issues in those 31,000 words, anyone is perfectly capable of bringing them up, but that can be done with briefer comments, and dealing with fewer issues at one time. I was not referring to you or anyone specifically with regard to extremes. Simply, if this much discussion has been going on and there has been no practical outcome, someone or everyone is being obstinate and unreasonable. It may very well be you, but I didn't read any of the previous, long exhausting discussion so I only know that you dispute the guideline in some way, having put the disputed tag back. Issues with the page can be brought up, concisely. —Centrx→talk • 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Werdnabot archival