Wikipedia talk:Importance/Archive 01

message: There is widespread debate (mostly on various "votes for deletion" pages and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance) on whether the lack of notability or importance be a legitimate reason to delete an article - in other words, what kinds of articles should exist at Wikipedia. Some think that verifiability is the only criterion for inclusion; others believe that some measure of "importance" is necessary:
From Wikipedia:Check your fiction:
*"The articles on fictional characters are going out of control. Simpson, Star War, Star Trek, Harry Potter. A strict guideline is definitely a priority." Anon
*"[We should] avoid context duplication and flooding of the article space with what many consider to be unencyclopedic fringe material." Anon
*"We don't write about every fictional character. If we have more fictional characters than physicists listed it is because that is what people prefer writing about. Whether a character (fictional or otherwise) should be on their own page or page about whatever it is they are related to should probably depend on how much there is to write about them." Angela
Re taking advantage of the fact that Wiki is not paper:
*:Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap. Anon
:I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"
The above conflicting viewpoints represent a large number of discussions over what should be included in Wikipedia. These arguments arise because official policy on this is unclear; it is not mentioned in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and the only obvious mention of which subjects deserve articles (in Wikipedia:Check your fiction) is not well defined:
:Do not unnecessarily create small articles about largely irrelevant fictional characters, locations, objects and so on that can be better integrated into larger articles.
What does "largely irrelevant" mean? This policy attempts to reach a consensus on this, so confusion and debate on article inclusion can be reduced.
··gracefool |☺ 05:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria for this might be well-intended, but they're going to present problems. In the paranormal realm, for example, you might have fortean phenomena that will be important to some, and maybe even very real, but you'll then get skeptics who will deny such an article the right to even exist on the patent nonsense grounds, not to mention arguing the same regarding religious topics for that matter. Thorny territory. As for unverifiable, there's a lot of encyclopedia-worthy stuff that's inherently unverifiable, but that should be no argument against inclusion as long as that fact is made explicit in the article, meaning that criterion could be problematic too. Breadth is definitely a Wikipedia selling point, I'm uncomfy with this one. Chris Rodgers 05:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiable essentially just means that you should be able to quote an outside source who is an expert on the subject. If you can't do that, your article is probably original research. Note that it calls for an expert on the subject, so for an article on the paranormal, it would be a paranormal expert, rather than a skeptical scientist. If you can find no outside expert sources for your subject, then I think almost everyone would agree with me in saying that your subject doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Importance cannot rightly be used to exclude subjects just because only a minority believes they are true. ··gracefool |☺ 00:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this policy is necessary

message: ===Importance of this article (also outside the context of imaginary stuff)===
I've been working a couple of times on the Copyleft article, e.g. on the section dealing with Copyleft in Art & documents, which includes a discussion of the GFDL licence (like e.g. applied for Wikipedia). The tenure of this section of the Copyleft article is that when applying copyleft outside the context of copylefting of software, it is unavoidable that one in the end relies on broader (and partially more intuitive) concepts than what is traditionally included in "copyright law". For art this is e.g. the notion of "respect" (like in "Droit d'auteur"). For wikipedia, one of the most important of these "broader and partly intuitive notions" is probably NPOV. The two pages explaining the basics of NPOV (NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial) make clear that NPOV at least partially relies on the notion of importance (see "space and balance" section of NPOV tutorial). So, it is my view that an article that in its turn tries to give a more general foundation to the concept of "importance" can only be applauded while it are such kind of articles that are the ultimate fundamentals of the wikipedia concept. --Francis Schonken 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) ··gracefool |☺ 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Thankyou for your insight, I entirely agree. I will move Wikipedia:Verifiability to Wikipedia:Falsifiability in the next few days. ··gracefool |☺ 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back to Verifiability; see the talk page. ··gracefool |☺ 07:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, this policy attempts to be a general definition of importance, not only applying to fiction or "fiction". ··gracefool |☺ 12:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three thoughts by [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis]] 

message: I've been working a couple of times on the Copyleft article, e.g. on the section dealing with Copyleft in Art & documents, which includes a discussion of the GFDL licence (like e.g. applied for Wikipedia). The tenure of this section of the Copyleft article is that when applying copyleft outside the context of copylefting of software, it is unavoidable that one in the end relies on broader (and partially more intuitive) concepts than what is traditionally included in "copyright law". For art this is e.g. the notion of "respect" (like in "Droit d'auteur"). For wikipedia, one of the most important of these "broader and partly intuitive notions" is probably NPOV. The two pages explaining the basics of NPOV (NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial) make clear that NPOV at least partially relies on the notion of importance (see "space and balance" section of NPOV tutorial). So, it is my view that an article that in its turn tries to give a more general foundation to the concept of "importance" can only be applauded while it are such kind of articles that are the ultimate fundamentals of the wikipedia concept. --Francis Schonken 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) ··gracefool |☺ 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance of this article (also outside the context of imaginary stuff)

message: Time and again I'm surprised to find the "verifiability" concept on those places where I expect to find the "falsifiability" concept. This is about whether or not Wikipedia has aspiration to any kind of scientific value (which I think it does/should have!). Am I the only person having some kind of an awkward feeling every time I read "verifiability" - or do I have my concepts wrong? --Francis Schonken 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for your insight, I entirely agree. I will move Wikipedia:Verifiability to Wikipedia:Falsifiability in the next few days. ··gracefool |☺ 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back to Verifiability; see the talk page. ··gracefool |☺ 07:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remark on the present content of the "importance" article

message: Recently I've been putting some work in the question of how to apply categorisation to articles on people (ultimately - i.e. yesterday - leading to a first step in the creation of the wikipedia:categorization of people article). The thought I want to add to this discussion page on "importance" is that the delimitation between "fictional" and "real" characters is not always so clear, e.g. if I remember well there is a medieval collection of some 200 hagiographies (including the first mentioning of Saint Sebastian), without there being any certainty whether these "saints" (that all became official saints in Roman Catholic tradition) really existed, or are just legendary. Same applies to several Bibilical figures (especially Old Testament). Also Orlando/Roland is such figure which some say has historic roots, while others would rather describe as "fictional". Jack the Ripper similarly. Homer himself (not the Simpson one!) similarly. And what about characters in roman à clef-kind of endeavours? (PS: well I stumbled into something here without knowing: I got so intrigued by these examples, way beyond the point I was trying to make here, that I decided to start a List of borderline fictional characters). What I want to say is that it appears to me that all categorisation has some vague edges, so that when writing a "wikipedia:" article on "importance" the preferable goal would be to have one uniform guideline for all articles, and not "per category" (which would lead to new unavoidable fuzzyness at the outskirts). Maybe the "uniform definition of importance" is not possible (...or practical), but nonetheless I would consider this as a "goal" as much as the perfect article.
:Yes, this policy attempts to be a general definition of importance, not only applying to fiction or "fiction". ··gracefool |☺ 12:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thought on fictional characters

message: It occurs to me that importance is perhaps not the best word choice. People rather disagree about what is important! Many contributors feel that much of the content, especially about fictional universes is not important and I'm not sure I don't disagree with them (Exclusing of course the fictional universes I'm obsessed love). But I would say that those types of articles are relevant and interesting enyclopediac content. Just my pennysworth. ChrisG 18:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd stick to "importance" rather than "relevance": see "Wiktionary" definition of "important": important comprises "relevant" as well as other issues, so importance is the broader concept. Also: relevance has a more subjective component: what is relevant for Hercule Poirot is not necessarily relevant for President Putin, etc...: when something is "important" there is more something of a "spread out" relevance for many persons. --Francis Schonken 14:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  re; Relevant rather than important 

message: Not that this wouldn't cause other problems, but what about creating a sister project for fictional material (e.g., "Middle Earth", "Elizabeth Bennet", etc.). One could then write, for example: The main character of Pride and Prejudice is wikifict:Elizabeth Bennet. - dcljr 04:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks. They're encyclopedic enough, and we've been able to get some quite good articles on them. Ambi 04:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictionland 

message: Some people feel that some articles about specialized subjects, especially fictional subjects, should not be included in Wikipedia, or should not have their own articles, even if they are considered important according to the above policy.  Articles agreed to be important may still be considered "unimportant" if:
If an article is agreed to be "important" according to the current policy, it still might be "unimportant", if the article is about a fictional subject, and:
# the article fails the 100 year test (In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?), and/or
# the article is small (eg. less than 1000 words), and/or
# the subject fails a Google Test for importance.
··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many, many articles fail this test. Moreover, this is impossible to determine. --η[ υωρ] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Many notable articles fail this test. --η[ υωρ] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Re this point and the one above it: Some people think those articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia. ··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As Eequor stated, this is an impossible test to measure (and a horrible idea).  We cannot predict the future, nor should we try.  GRider\talk 18:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: This is very subjective. --η[ υωρ] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion about the test and it's failings should be at Wikipedia talk:Google Test.
Almost all policies are subjective judgments, most of them more subjective than the Google Test. 
Yes, these alternatives would result in deletion of many articles. However, some people think these articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and make their views known by voting such articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Importance is designed to reduce the arguments on VfD and come to a consensus. In the interests of fair representation, I think these alternatives should be at least considered. ··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I just don't see the problem with what we have now. At the moment, we have the opportunity to use all of these to come to a reasoned conclusion as to whether the article is indeed notable. This policy, as it stands, is an inclusionist's dream. I mean, according to this, there's even a cloud over deleting hoaxes. Give me a break. Ambi 06:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, there should be a cloud over deleting hoaxes. Unless you mean Wikipedia hoaxes / hoaxes created by one or a few people as a joke, which would in any case be excluded based on verifiability. ··gracefool |☺ 01:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative policies

message: the article fails the 100 year test (In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?)
: Many, many articles fail this test. Moreover, this is impossible to determine. --η[ υωρ] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many notable articles fail this test. --η[ υωρ] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Re this point and the one above it: Some people think those articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia. ··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As Eequor stated, this is an impossible test to measure (and a horrible idea).  We cannot predict the future, nor should we try.  GRider\talk 18:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: This is very subjective. --η[ υωρ] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion about the test and it's failings should be at Wikipedia talk:Google Test.
Almost all policies are subjective judgments, most of them more subjective than the Google Test. 
Yes, these alternatives would result in deletion of many articles. However, some people think these articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and make their views known by voting such articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Importance is designed to reduce the arguments on VfD and come to a consensus. In the interests of fair representation, I think these alternatives should be at least considered. ··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I just don't see the problem with what we have now. At the moment, we have the opportunity to use all of these to come to a reasoned conclusion as to whether the article is indeed notable. This policy, as it stands, is an inclusionist's dream. I mean, according to this, there's even a cloud over deleting hoaxes. Give me a break. Ambi 06:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, there should be a cloud over deleting hoaxes. Unless you mean Wikipedia hoaxes / hoaxes created by one or a few people as a joke, which would in any case be excluded based on verifiability. ··gracefool |☺ 01:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Personally I have a great dislike for the 100 year test. Maybe this is not the right place to discuss this, but as far as I know it is mentioned on more than one wikipedia policy page, and seems to be relevant to this "importance" discussion. Also I have no idea about the preliminaries of how this concept grew in Wikipedia (I don't want to throw away just like that something over which a consensus was maybe only reached after long thoughts & discussions).
Nonetheless...
I'd favour replacing the 100 year test by something I'd call the public address test: When a concept is used in a public speech, or in a writing, or whatever form that is addressed to the public at large (so not limited to an in-crowd) and if that concept is not explained in that public address itself, then that concept has every right to be a Wikipedia article (or a wiktionary article in the case a short definition of the meaning of the word is all that is needed to understand the concept).
I try to clarify this with an example: Larry Wall gave a "State of the Onion" speech, which was for an in-crowd (a congress). Later this speech becomes something for the "public at large", while O'Reilly publishes it here. In this speech Larry Wall uses some concepts which he clearly intends everybody to understand without further explanation, e.g.:
* State of the Onion;
* hubris
* ADHD
* etc ...
... which according to the public address test mentioned above are all eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia as separate articles.
===Advantages of public address test over 100 year test===
* Although not 100% bullet proof either, the public address test has undeniably a higher degree of verifiability/falsifiability than the 100 year test (so, in my view, advancing NPOV).
* I wouldn't worry so much about people living in a hundred years, as about people living today being able to understand whatever they are likely to encounter some day in the public space.
===Public address test relies on...===
* ... good definition of the distinction between an "in-crowd" and the "public at large", which is never totally NPOV, but better manageable than the definition of what people will be likely to think in a 100 years.
(Francis Schonken 21:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. certainly better than the 100 year test. ··gracefool |☺ 12:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah, on second thoughts, that would be better. The public address test seems to me to disclude a lot of articles which have inclusion consensus. ··gracefool |☺ 21:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: There's no need to delete articles which don't pass the public address test.  We can't expect somebody to give a speech on or write a book about every notable topic.  A large number of subjects are more or less understood to be public knowledge already, so a "public address" about them would be silly.  The public address test should only be an argument for inclusion.  --η[ υωρ] 22:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that the public address test approves basically everything in the Enyclopedia Brittanica, which is in the public domain.  --η[ υωρ] 22:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that just instruction creep? There's no way that we're going to delete anything that's in the EB, or that's even close to that notable. Ambi 22:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get rid of the 100 year test 

message: * ... good definition of the distinction between an "in-crowd" and the "public at large", which is never totally NPOV, but better manageable than the definition of what people will be likely to think in a 100 years.
(Francis Schonken 21:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. certainly better than the 100 year test. ··gracefool |☺ 12:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah, on second thoughts, that would be better. The public address test seems to me to disclude a lot of articles which have inclusion consensus. ··gracefool |☺ 21:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: There's no need to delete articles which don't pass the public address test.  We can't expect somebody to give a speech on or write a book about every notable topic.  A large number of subjects are more or less understood to be public knowledge already, so a "public address" about them would be silly.  The public address test should only be an argument for inclusion.  --η[ υωρ] 22:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that the public address test approves basically everything in the Enyclopedia Brittanica, which is in the public domain.  --η[ υωρ] 22:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that just instruction creep? There's no way that we're going to delete anything that's in the EB, or that's even close to that notable. Ambi 22:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Public address test'' relies on...

message: The short-lived wikipedia:trivia straw poll is now a redirect to wikipedia:importance:
* I updated wikipedia:policy thinktank accordingly, with a reference to wikipedia talk:trivia that explains the reasons for the merger.
* Still not solved, in my view: are "trivia" and "wikipedia importance" mutually exclusive?
** Some articles on people have a "trivia" section - should these be kept?
*** I would keep that! --Francis Schonken 06:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: My own personal prejudice tends towards "Stuff important, show me Interesting".
I'm tired of reading people pontificate about whether a subject is "important enough" to include on Wikipedia; they assume that because they have no personal interest in it, it is therefore "too trivial" for anyone else to be allowed to consider.
Wikipedia will wither on the vine if there is not enough interesting material for people to read; your average user will not want to be dictated to as to what is "important enough" for them to be allowed to read about.
As for the "100 years" test, I'll bet there's a whole load of stuff which has simply been forgotten because some stuffy old encyclopedist decided it was "too trivial" to record.
HTH HAND
--Phil | Talk 13:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
::Hi Phil,
::Both "importance" and "interesting" as a "wikipedia:" subdomain topic somehow derive from the "Space and Balance" section of the wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, that is: NPOV is one of the central concepts for making Wikipedia possible; by the end of the second page explaining NPOV (i.e. the tutorial), it appears that NPOV relies on both "interesting" and "importance", so it is a noble goal to give a more general definition of both terms. Note that "interesting" and "importance" are seen as different concepts in that spot, for clarity I give the complete quote, bolding the occurences of both concepts:
:::Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.
::So the topic of this page is importance, but don't let that stop you from contributing to the twin topic wikipedia:interesting too.
::--Francis Schonken 10:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be interested in joining the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians?  --η[ υωρ] 18:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: For anyone else interested, see also the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Ambi 23:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance compared to Interest 

message: === Not a good Choice ===
This is stupid. Encyclopedias are for the dissemination of information among the general public. Although I understand that there is interesting information here (a lot of interesting information at that) I do not think this would be useful to most people, and I also think that this would not go under the category of one of Wikipedia's most excellent articles.
:Luckily encylopedias, like most everything else, are not made for individuals and their personal whims, likes, and dislikes. Your disinterest in music says more about yourself than music or encyclopedias. This article is accesible except in the section on the melody which does not explain (or even link to) the musical terminology used (with the exception of tonic). If this is the source of your complaint, rather than complain about something you don't understand, you could simply have asked people with a different, not infererior, area of knowledge to make those edits and explanations. Hyacinth 00:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Talk:Yesterday (song)]]

message: This is stupid. Encyclopedias are for the dissemination of information among the general public. Although I understand that there is interesting information here (a lot of interesting information at that) I do not think this would be useful to most people, and I also think that this would not go under the category of one of Wikipedia's most excellent articles.
:Luckily encylopedias, like most everything else, are not made for individuals and their personal whims, likes, and dislikes. Your disinterest in music says more about yourself than music or encyclopedias. This article is accesible except in the section on the melody which does not explain (or even link to) the musical terminology used (with the exception of tonic). If this is the source of your complaint, rather than complain about something you don't understand, you could simply have asked people with a different, not infererior, area of knowledge to make those edits and explanations. Hyacinth 00:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a good Choice 

message: Does this page still need to be listed at Requests for Comment? Maurreen 01:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - it is still an issue that needs deciding. This article, or a modified version thereof, should be made official policy. ··gracefool |☺ 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC?

message: "Importance" is tied with GOOPTI (acronym by User:Antaeus_Feldspar, but a concept familiar to us all): Horses of Middle-earth may be "important", but it is certainly GOOPTI. I'm just proposing here to merge this page into a WP:GOOPTI policy (i.e. if a concept is "important", but treated totally out of proportion with its level of importance, it may be trimmed and merged). dab (ᛏ) 20:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I and many others completely disagree with GOOPTI. It's even more POV than this policy currently is. ··gracefool |☺ 02:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to explain the logic underlying that conclusion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm starting to regret having included "non-notable" as the reason for one of my votes in a VfD, because I've been thinking about "The Perfect Encyclopedia", (you know, like The perfect article), and I've realized that what I'd consider a major attribute of the perfect encyclopedia would be the obscurity of its contents.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to store and disseminate information.  The more information, the closer to the ideal; the Perfect Encyclopedia would be an indexed, searchable, omniscience.  What concerns me about Importance or GOOPTI policies or my own use of the phrase non-notable is that it blocks out obscure information, and I think the encyclopedia's purposes are better served by Horses of Middle-earth than by, say, funnel cake because while it's likely that fewer people care about Tolkienian horses than about funnel cakes, and we could thus rule the horses as less "notable" or "important", more people know about funnel cakes already.  Sure, if the only people who know about something without having read the wikipedia article are the ones doing the editing, I think it's appropriate to delete the article on the grounds of "non-notable", but really aren't we just using that as shorthand for "We think the people who created and/or maintained this article essentially made it up, thus it is either unverifiable, incorrect, original research, or some combination thereof?"  I know that's been my tendency.  It's one of those things where I don't really think it's a matter of importance that makes cradily an Acceptable Article Subject Matter but a student group at some university an Unacceptable Article Subject Matter, it's that nobody who's not a member of that student group will ever be able to provide information about it, whereas anyone who gets ahold of Pokemon media can provide infromation about a cradily.  It's just easier to explain that as "cradily is more important [encyclopedic, notable, famous, etc.] than MPAS" The Literate Engineer 03:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you making a distinction between obscure information and obscure details?  GOOPTI differentiates between the two:  it does not say "X is so obscure it does not need to be covered', it says "X does not need to be covered in this level of detail." -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'm not sure that I was, actually.  The Literate Engineer 21:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry for not explaining myself. Actually, I take back what I said, it isn't necessarily any more POV than Importance. However, if something is good enough to be included, what's wrong with someone expanding on it, if it is well-written and stands up to other Wikipedia policies? Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper. ··gracefool |☺ 07:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GOOPTI

message: I feel that the wording, or viewpoint of the policy is off. Instead of saying what criteria excludes an article, we should say what criterea includes it. Also, the X people rule is unusable, I think - I've converted it a bit, notably the "must be clear and unestimated", and "or were concurrently" (we shouldn't delete an old article just because it's passed on).
We should also make a policy (that is, part of this policy) that applies to sections of an artice, for example, I might say that I played a video game 4 days ago, and provide proof, but this would not be important enough to include at computer and video games.
If noone disagrees, I'll replace the project page wording with this shortly, and we can tweak it from there. Slike2 08:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to this - it's the best wording I've seen yet, but what Gracefool says is quite true. Ambi 10:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've taken the "estimated" part out, "there is clear proof" is enough, I think, for judgement to be made. The reason I put the other policies at the bottom is because I think that they are seperate from this one. For example, something may be important due to one clause (such as hilarious patent nonsense recieveing 1000 visitors, brand new major discoveries that are obviously true but are pending publication elsewhere, and so on). The other rules do not establish importance, it's just that it should be noted that they still apply with greater force than someone proving importance. I've also added another criterea, "it is an expantion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject". Slike2 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewording 

message: Looks good. A few things though: The last section should be at the top. They are not reasons things may be deleted, they are reasons things should be deleted. Furthermore they are current policies with much greater acceptance than this one.
Also, what is "proof" of interest of a reasonable number of people? You'd need to have 500 people state they are interested. It is always going to be an estimate, as far as I can see, that can't be avoided. ··gracefool |☺ 09:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to this - it's the best wording I've seen yet, but what Gracefool says is quite true. Ambi 10:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've taken the "estimated" part out, "there is clear proof" is enough, I think, for judgement to be made. The reason I put the other policies at the bottom is because I think that they are seperate from this one. For example, something may be important due to one clause (such as hilarious patent nonsense recieveing 1000 visitors, brand new major discoveries that are obviously true but are pending publication elsewhere, and so on). The other rules do not establish importance, it's just that it should be noted that they still apply with greater force than someone proving importance. I've also added another criterea, "it is an expantion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject". Slike2 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is it possible for an article to be unimportant yet not be original research?  It seems to me that if a subject is unimportant then nobody reputable will have bothered to publish any information on it, and so there will be no reputable source to cite on it.  In contrapositive, if there exists a reputable source for some information, then clearly the information has been deemed worthy of publication by someone fit to judge, and we may conclude that it is sufficiently important.
I therefore propose that a policy on importance is unnecessary.  We should articulate and enforce a clear policy on what are acceptable sources, and accept an article as sufficiently important if and only if acceptable sources are cited.
Hesperian 30 June 2005 01:02 (UTC)
* Ah, I see I have merely restated the (NPOV + verifiable) position defended above by SimonP.  Well, it has my vote.  Hesperian 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC)
***I can't take credit for this notion, it was originally Jimbo's. - SimonP June 30, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
** I disagree with this. I remember seeing a VfD for a website a while ago that obviously nothing was published on, yet it had 500ish users logged in, and many more registered, so it was obviously of some importance. There are plenty of things that people may want to know about, and that would be completely valid additions to wikipedia, that "seem" to fall under original research. I think that "original research" is used completely innapropriately on wikipedia by editors wishing to remove content: "A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas" - going on to mention "a theory or method of solution", "original idea", "defines new terms" "an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". You'll note that this does not include things like "George Bush's dog died on June 14th" (this is made up, but imagine it was true) - this specific sentance falls under importance. Slike2 30 June 2005 01:49 (UTC)
*** The obvious response is: if the website is so "obviously of some importance", then how come nothing has been published on it?  And why should Wikipedia stick its neck out and become the first to do so?  But that response leads inevitably to a debate about the merits of the No original research policy, and we're talking about an Importance policy here.  On the subject of Importance:Those who deny the importance of the website and desire the deletion of its Wikipedia article would happily note that the article would be subject to deletion under the No original research policy, and must therefore conclude that an Importance policy yields no benefits in this case.  Those who affirm the importance of the website and desire to retain its Wikipedia article will unhappily note that it would be subject to deletion under the No original research policy, and must therefore conclude that an Importance policy cannot save the article from deletion.  Either way, an Importance Policy has no bearing in this case; the issue here is whether or not the No original research policy is sometimes "used completely inappropriately on wikipedia".  Therefore your example appears to reinforce my view that an Importance policy would yield no benefits, and that the key to it all is No original research.  Hesperian 30 June 2005 03:02 (UTC)
**** Original research applies to ideas and theories - it does not apply to something like me saying "the Holocaust occured before Derek Smart's birth date". This is a novel statement of fact (I don't believe it's ever been said before), but it is not a novel idea, or theory, etc. No original research does not apply there - but importance does. A website may not have been mentioned in any reputable publication, but I'm absolutely sure that this does not mean we should write nothing about it. I hope you see the difference? Slike2 30 June 2005 04:08 (UTC)
*****I see your point, and it's a good one.  I need to think this through before responding. Hesperian 30 June 2005 06:23 (UTC)
*****Actually Wikopedia:No original research applies to far more than new ideas and theories. Our definition is that "original research refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas." My view, however, is that original research is not the main reason we deleted pages on minor websites, verifiability is. Verifiable does not just mean that each fact can be cited somewhere, it means that the accuracy and NPOV of our article can be independently verified. The only place to get detailed information on a minor website is from it or from those close to it. The same is true of unimportant people, garage bands, and many other items. For garage bands, for instance, the only people that will know enough about them to write an article are the members and close friends and family of the band. All these sources are biased making it impossible for us to guarantee that an article is NPOV. This is why we need to base articles of secondary sources such as newspapers and journals, not just because an article on a garage band would be original research. - SimonP June 30, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
*****Slike, you're still giving me examples of articles / information that would be deleted on Wikipedia:No original research grounds.  WIkipedia:Importance can't save an article from being deleted on Wikipedia:No original research grounds; only Wikipedia:No original research can determine whether an article is deleted on Wikipedia:No original research grounds.  If you think we should be writing about websites that have not been mentioned in any reputable publication, then you should be a force for changing the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy.  I still can't think of a situation where promulgating Wikipedia:Importance would have any affect at all. Hesperian 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)
******Forgive my slowness of mind; I'm finally beginning to comprehend the importance of this proposed policy.  It is within my power to write a fully cited and entirely NPOV article on Stoddy, one of the nine camels that accompanied David Carnegie on his epic journey from Coolgardie to Halls Creek.  Where he went, what load he was carrying, how much water he drank, the time he ate poison and almost died: it's all there in Carnegie's published journal.  I think an Importance policy is needed to help me resist the temptation. Hesperian 1 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
*******What harm would it do were you to write such an article, assuming that it was indeed correct, properly cited, and NPOV?  Let me see:  1) it would consume your time, 2) it might consume some disk space, and 3) it will consume part of the article namespace.  Item #1 is strictly your own concern.  Item #2 is de minimis--disks are cheap.  Item #3 is probably the most likely reason, although in this case not an issue (given the lack of things called "stoddy").  Granted, nobody would probably care about the article--but it's presence wouldn't be damaging in any tangible way.  I see no real harm to Wikipedia, or its readers, were such an article to be created. --EngineerScotty 00:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unimportance = Original Research

message: Depth is not importance, or notability so why do people keep vandalising it by redirecting it here? Dunc|☺ 14:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth 

message: It would be nice if someone could include a link to it, so we could actually read it... Dan100 (Talk) 14:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Ah ha, found it (I think). Dan100 (Talk) 14:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::And you're not linking to it either? Ha ha! :-) Tedernst 20:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jimbo's note" 

message: "...deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true:
There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide)..."
Five hundred? You have to be joking. I'd suggest five hundred thousand. Marskell 09:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, simply removing numbers period might be best. Re. my suggested figure note what the page actually states "...(eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." Not 500 bought a record, watched the show, read the book etc.—simply 500 concurrently interested. Phrased liked that, yes (within an order of magnitude say) 500 000 is IMHO fair. Marskell 07:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed 500 to "international, national, province/statewide audience" to bring it in-line with changes at WP:BIO. Note that the lead states "any one of these." Thus, this isn't a requisite for inclusion but rather one criterion that may allow for inclusion. Marskell 13:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sigh. When I read things like the above paragraph my honest first thought is to stop editing on Wiki. If 50 or 100 is the entry point then I might as well waste my time on a blog or discussion board. That said, this is a proposed guideline so I will re-revert and await further comments. Marskell 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Your argument makes me want to stop contributing" is not a valid argument. It would be unfortunate if you were to leave because someone shared an opinion or belief, yes - but since we seem to be holding a discussion I'd appreciate it if you didn't use that sort of thing to argue your point. You seem to think that by adding more information, we cheapen the information already within the encyclopedia. I strongly disagree. If there is one person in the world that could benefit from the most obscure of articles here, we should be doing our very best to make sure that that article is welcome here. Please provide some examples of articles that may be innapropriate if included based on a rule of 500 people (or better yet, 5 people). | Could you please revert your edit to the initial 500 that we started with? If you're proposing a change and there is disagreement, I think that it's fair to leave it as it was until the matter is settled, especially if two editors have reverted in opposition. –MT 04:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with M. What keeps things of minor interest out is not that few people are interested in them, but that they are not generally verifiable. As long as an article can be checked to ensure it is neutral and accurate there is no reason to believe it will harm the encyclopedia. If you hate the entry on Qubit Field Theory, simply ignore it. - SimonP 04:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
It was a comment not an argument and I'm free to make it so save me the lecture. 
To repeat: "this isn't a requisite for inclusion but rather one criterion that may allow for inclusion." If Qubit Field Theory fails a number bar it passes on the basis of being peer-reviewed so the comparison doesn't hold. 
Further, "I think 'interest' refers to 'interest in reading an encyclopedic article on the subject'" introduces an enormous amount of grey area. How can that possibly be measured except incompletely by subjective commentary on VfD? And it seems to me having made that suggestion you subsequently contradict it: "We should include verifiable articles on any subject" and Simon's subsequent "What keeps things of minor interest out is not that few people are interested in them, but that they are not generally verifiable." 
So which is it: interest and verifiability or verifiability alone? If we leave out interest altogether and simply go with verifiability how about:
*U.S. Army Captain may have a company of 100-200 under his command and would pass M's test. A Major and Lieutenant Colonel would certainly pass the 500 test. Are these verifiable? Absolutely. Should they be included? I don't think so and of course they'd get swatted down on VfD. 
*Similarly, any CEO or senior manager with more than 500 staff should be included. 
*The high school principal argument is totally valid here. They easily have a staff 50; over ten or fifteen years on the job an entire generation of one municipality is going to know their name. Is this verifiable? Sure it is. Does it belong. Again, I'd say no. Marskell 09:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 500 is less than 0.000008% of the world's population, clearly too low for a timeless, universal encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 19:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It strikes me that these latest comments are essentially advocating a removal of numbers period. This isn't a bad idea. Marskell 09:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd number 

message: How many is a reasonable amount of people? My message board has 150 regular users and about 350 irregular users, that's quite a lot of people. Yet it's been dismissed as non notable! :( Borgs8472 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject 

message: Pardon the long-winded rant :), but I'd like to expand on a question posed above, in response to the suggested article on Stoddy the camel.
I've often pondered the subject of importance/notability, both here and on other wikis (with different editorial policies).  Often times, I wonder about whether an article is "important" enough for inclusion, and what criteria are appropriate, and what others might think.
Then I always come back to the fundamental question:
Why? Why delete unimportant articles?  More specifically, why delete articles solely on grounds of importance or notability; articles that are otherwise verifiable, properly cited, NPOV, and encyclopedic?  Why would Wikipedia and/or its readers be better off not having access to information about Stoddy then having access to it?
I've come up with several plausible reasons, some better than others.  Of course, my list of reasons may be incomplete, so feel free to suggest others, or swat me upside the head if I'm all wet here.  At any rate, I've come to the conclusion that deletion of articles based on (un)importance is not necessary.  Many of the issues that restrict other forums simply don't apply here--we have no need to perform triage.
* Conservation of physical resources
This is a major issue with print encyclopedias, which have firm (and non-negotiable) page counts that they must not exceed.  Likewise for editions distributed on other forms of physical media, which may need to fit in n DVDs (often 1; as having to swap discs is a major source of annoyance to users).  But, Wikipedia is not paper.  Meaning--Wikipedia isn't bound by this sort of constraint.  According to the FAQ, the database size (as of 1 year ago, including logs and metadata, excluding images) is 170 Gb.  Most of us have bigger disks on our PCs.  Even assuming replication of the data for perfomance, inclusion of images, and more room consumed by article expansion--this is scarcely a limitation.  Modern computer systems routinely manage databases that are several orders of magnitude larger than that.  
* Conservation of editorial resources
This is a major issue with traditionally-edited encyclopedias, both print and online.  Britannica, and the rest, employ a finite team of writers and editors who must generate, edit, revise, select, and arrange the content.  Each additional article increases the workload of the editorial staff.  However, this is also less of an issue for Wikipedia.  Articles aren't written unless someone puts forth the effort to write them; so that's not an issue.  Arrangement of articles is not an issue.  The main concern might be the other editorial functions--revision, fact-checking, and such, which ought to be done by persons other than the original author.  However, it does not seem to be the case that the Wikipedia editors and admins are overworked; nor does there seem to be a "backlog" of new articles that haven't been vetted by at least one other person (even if no changes are made).
* Conservation of namespace
This doesn't seem to be an issue, despite the mostly-flat (two levels, essentially) namespace that Wikipedia uses.  Existing procedures (disambig pages, cross-links, etc) work well in resolving namespace conflicts.  The search capabilities (both internal to Wiki, and external via search engines) allow readers and editors to find articles quickly without knowing the article's exact name.  Perhaps if Wikipedia tried to index every man, woman, and child in the world--the list of John Smiths would get unwieldy.  But the vast majority of people can be excluded due to reasons other than notability or importance.
* Consiseness as an improvement for the reader
It is often argued that users (as a whole) are better served with a more consise volume; one that may contain fewer articles, but (allegedly) contains a higher signal/noise ratio.  A common justification for deletion of unimportant articles is that they indeed are "noise"--and that a great way to improve your SNR is to reduce noise.  However, what one may consider noise another may consider signal.  My ideal Wikipedia would contain precisely those topics I'm interested in that day, and nothing else; but that would be useless to virtually everyone else.  Most Wikipedia readers may not care about Oregon Highway 103 (a page on an obscure Oregon state highway that I created some tiem back), but the roadgeek community does.  Further, SNR is a concern in limited-bandwidth channels, where an increase in noise corresponds to a decrease in bandwidth.  But Wikipedia is not (from a quantity-of-information point of view) a limited-bandwidth channel.  
A related argument is the argument that having lots of information (some of which certain readers may consider superfluous) makes it harder to find articles of interest.  However--if google and others can index a World Wide Web containing billions of pages, including many created by hostile parties with the specific purpose of skewing search results, and do so in such a fashion that most searches return meaningful results--surely we can handle a site with mere millions (today only 750k) of articles, articles which are under our control (and thus theoretically free of malicious content)?
Some of this may come from the wiki culture; where conciseness is seen as a virtue, and reductionism a dominant paradigm.
* Controlling self-promotion
One stated target of importance criteria is vanity articles.  (Other forms of self-promotion, including advertising--spammy or unintrusive--can clearly be dealt with via NPOV and need not be judged based on importance).  Some believe that verifiability (and the requirement that sources be independent and meet some criteria for worthiness) will filter out vanity; if a person/band/small business gets a lot of press, chances are he/she/it is notable anyway.  Others disagree; pointing out that many sources--even reputable ones--can be manipulated to give the appearance of importance (such is the business of public relations), and that Wikipedia needs an additional reason to remove self-promotional content.  That may be true; I'm not sure notability is the best lever to use.  Perhaps a more explicit policy requiring independence of editors from their subject; anonymous editors always being considered suspect--articles that are truly self-promotion can be rejected for that reason.
* Issues of reputability/prestige/status
In many cases, I suspect that this last point may be the bottom line in many notability disputes; even if other reasons are cited.  Many readers consider encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) as "sentries" or "filters" whose editorial function (among other things) is to separate wheat from chaff; correspondingly, being covered in an encyclopedia is something which is highly coveted.  Many encyclopedias have happily encouraged this belief--and seek to zealously guard their prestige by actively suppressing topics which are likely to be considered frivolous by readers.  For the Encyclopaedia Britannica to have an article on a topic such as Stoddy would be scandalous--were such an article to sneak past the editors and make it into print, heads would likely roll.  
Many debates over notability arise from debates over the relative worth of a topic, rather than the content of an article.  
This strikes me as the other reason why Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper is important.  Not only are we not constrained by physical limitations such as page count--but we do not (and we should not, in my opinion) strive to be the arbiter of what is important, notable, or otherwise worthy.  Nor should we be concerned about being "debased" by including trivia or cruft--the only thing that debases Wikipedia are articles that contain POV, are poorly-written, are incorrect, are unverifiable, or are unencyclopedic--all of which are orthogonal to importance.
Finally, I should repeat an argument here that I made on c2 in a similar debate:  The act of article creation and article deletion are not symmetrical.   Creation is passive; deletion is violent.  If a borderline-notable article exists, nobody is forced to read it.  But if a borderline-notable article is deleted, everybody is prevented from doing so, or must go somewhere else if they indeed are interested in the topic.  Thus, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to always err on the side of keeping the article. 
Again, I apologize for the long post.  
--EngineerScotty 05:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said Engineer, I'm in hearty agreement with you.  I particularly appreciated that you highlighted the violence inherent in acts of deletion (which is sometimes justified - I'm no pacificist).  I've only got one thing to add.  With regard to the prestige issue: my impression is that some people would stop contributing if articles didn't have to clear a notability bar.  They require that wikipedia be, or at least work toward being, elite.  Now if these people are exactly the same as the deletionists, then it doesn't really matter since they destroy more than they create and Wikipedia is well rid of them, but I'm not sure that's the case.  It isn't unnatural for people to want to create and belong to an elite club.  Perhaps a notability bar is required to prevent discouragement of high-end contributors?  --noösfractal 06:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why delete unimportant articles? 

message: A lot has been said, and I apologize if this is simply a repeat of what someone else has already said;
The purpose of the Notability clause, as I understand it, is to guard against primarily the creation of articles about yourself, your parents, your hometown, etc. When I created articles about my workplace, the Museum of Science, Boston, and Lord of the Rings the Motion Picture Trilogy the Exhibition I thought I was pushing it. As an academic (or should I say, an aspiring academic), I value esoteric topics rather highly. I have written many articles on battles and warriors in Japanese history, who the average reader (user) might find un-notable. But if they merit mention in a history book, or in a college history lecture, then I think they merit an article or at least part of an article here.
I do not think it is my place, or really any one person's place to say what is and is not notable/important enough, as long as it is within someone's field of interest. You might not care about who Kosaka Masanobu and Kitabatake Chikafusa were, but they are historical figures, worthy of an encyclopedia; Robert H. Grubbs, Richard R. Schrock, and Yves Chauvin are mentioned on today's Main Page for their work on olefin metathesis. I have just about zero knowledge or interest in who they are or what they're working on, but I'm sure there are quite a number of scientist Wikipedians who do care.
Outside of fancruft (which is a whole debate unto itself), and articles on one's own parents, teachers, hometown, High School, etc, I think we need to be very careful about what we label as un-important or non-notable, and I think that very very few articles should fall under those labels. LordAmeth 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Subjectivity 

message: What does this criteria mean?  Does it mean that the article contains claims that have appeared in peer-reviewed work, or that the subject is an area where work gets peer reviewed, or something else? --- Charles Stewart 16:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first. It has appeared in a peer-reviewed work. Marskell 16:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we then change this part to read The article contains information that has been peer reviewed? --- Charles Stewart 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of opposition, and on the grounds that the existing text didn't make clear sense, I've change the text to a minor variant of the above --- Charles Stewart 21:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The subject has been peer-reviewed'