Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Fame and importance

message: This poll is not saying something has to be famous/important to be included in wikipedia. It says does there exist some threshold of fame/importance  which articles should exceed, without specifying what that threshold should be. That is it is on the principle should we include articles on everything or require some level of fame/importance. --Imran 20:19, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really you should have asked the question about "fame" and the question about "importance" separately. They are different concepts, and it is certainly not the case that someone who agrees about one will agree about the other. -- Oliver P. 03:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: #Daniel C. Boyer - but perhaps these are not the right words to use, but subject of article must have some colourable basis for inclusion (have done or been involved in something of marginal significance, or have a status of at least marginal significance [e.g. children of royalty])
#Angela
#Ashibaka ✎
#Imran
#Archivist
#Tempshill
#Jiang
#JeLuF
#Maximus Rex
#Dori
#Secretlondon - although needs quantifying.Obscure subjects are fine (and to be encouraged), articles aimed at children/young people are fine (all the video games etc), but someone who thinks they are a famous whatever and they are not, or someone who has a crank theory that exists only on usenet is not. Autobiographies are bad, self-promotion is bad. 
#Wiwaxia
#Darkelf — but agreed with Secretlondon in that this needs some quantifying.
#Sean 23:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: #+sj+ 00:01, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
(earlier note:) I definitely agree that some view of the wikipedia should have fame and importance standards.  I also definitely feel that acquiring as much NPOV information as possible is good.  Some information not currently important may become so -- your local city councilman may become mayor, or an international talk-show-host star who later becomes governor.  In which case it will be wonderful to have your old thoughts about him handy.  And even if only twenty people in the world care about your information -- the local place-names for landmarks in your home village 40 miles outside of Islamabad, in all 12 regional dialects -- that's the kind of glorious archive that only a distributed encyclopedia can provide. 
:Suggestion -- perhaps a 'superencyclopedic' wiki could be created largely as a place to put all of these personal, local, and quaint articles which are regularly slated for deletion?  a user's family tree, bios of "unimportant" people like the locak teachers and doctors who keep small communities together, neighborhood landmarks, etc.  [anecdote: a high school kid in my neighborhood famously put up a site about how much the area sucked, w/photos of neighborhoods, quotes from the police blotter, etc.  it ended up being a great introductino to new residents, and was mentioned quite favourably on a "welcome to our town" mailing list...]
::Itai 11:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This has to be one of the most confusing polls ever. Even though the existence of this option (Yes and No) violates the mutual exclusivity requirement of good questionnaire construction and makes the data obtained in the poll useless, it is, by a process of elimination, the best choice. Not only should "fame" and "importance" not be a necessary or sufficient condition for article deletion, but they cannot be. They are virtually unoperationalizable. Never-the-less, the objective of discouraging "trivial" entries remains sound. The question is, How can that be done without lowering ourselves to subjective assessments of what we feel is important or using popular culture indices like Google hits. Jimbo is correct in that we already have good operationalizable criteria like "verifiability", "promotion/advertising", etc. We have to ask ourselves if introducing this new criterion will help us obtain the non-triviality objective better than we are able to with only existing criteria. If existing criteria sets the triviality bar too low, we have to come up with better additions than "fame" because this is just asking for a subjective popularity contest on each VFD entry. mydogategodshat 09:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Superposition of yes and no

message: #Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV.  I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms.  Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google.  I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it.  (I certainly don't.)  It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia.  What is it that makes this encyclopedic?  It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.  (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.) See #Discussion of Jimbo's no
#Anthony DiPierro - Wikipedia is not paper.
#Jack 09:40, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: **Two points; a) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for 'speaking your mind' and b) the first amendment to the Constitution of Ireland extended to conflicts in which the State is not a participant the provision for a state of emergency to secure the public safety and preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion. Is this what you had in mind or do you imagine that the writ og the US constitution runs everywhere? Bmills 15:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of ScifiterX's no

message: WE MUST HAVE AN ARTICLE ON EACH AND EVERY ANT IN MY ANT FARM! - Arthur George Carrick
:That would appear to require considerable original research, I, for one, am not up for it. Mark Richards 05:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of JamesDay's no

message: **Well said.  I'd like to add that "vanity pages" is a problematic criteria.  It's almost never clear-cut whether or not a page is actually a vanity page, and I have seen some definitively non-vanity pages called vanity by many people. Anthony DiPierro 22:54, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Itai's no

message: :Of course we should have comprehensive and serious coverage of mathematics and geography and Marilyn Monroe and etc. ad nauseam, and if the trivial articles were preventing people from covering this in some way, I might understand the argument.  But they don't -- I would argue that they may even encourage people to become contributors, because it shows them that their own personal corner of the world (be it their neighborhood school, their Rubik's cube hobby, etc) IS suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia that purports to want to present all knowledge.  And if you can't force the volunteers to focus on "serious subjects", why alienate them by deleting what they have worked hard to contribute, within their sphere of knowledge?   Yes, it will take work to tag articles for significance for various filters, forks and print projects.  But is that really more work than wrestling each article through the contentious VfD process, and eliminating knowledge that might otherwise be of benefit or importance to someone, somewhere?
:I'm not arguing that there are legitimate candidates for deletion, but the parameters Jimbo has favored seem like a reasonable check to me.  Organize, categorize, move -- or better yet, improve -- to your heart's content.  Or list it on Cleanup for someone else to do.  But if it was important enough for someone to write, it may well be important enough for someone to read, don't you think?  Catherine 21:33, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. Sam Spade 21:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Echo that. It's even gotten to the point where genuine stubs of important info are being deleted because they aren't good enough yet! ··gracefool |☺ 03:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Extraneous's no

message: 1. Non-famous subjects in Wikipedia tend to be either people or schools. In each case, the article is typically written by the subject, or someone close to the subject. I believe this raises two immediate problems, of bias and of verifiability. To this extent I'm not stating that non-famous subjects should be deleted for being non-famous, however I am stating that if a subject is non-famous, then (by definition) the chances are small of there being other Wikipedians who can verify the information and counter bias. As such, these articles should be treated with extreme suspicion until corroborating sources can be found. In my personal opinion, this suspicion should extend to deletion if no external sources are readily available, i.e. the assumption here should be guilty until some argument for innocence is presented.
: IMO, better to risk having biased information than no information at all. No matter what source you get your information from, the reader should always be aware that the source may be biased. That ever goes for printed encyclopedias. As for something on the internet, well, everyone knows how reliable such information is. "I read it on the internet so it must be true" is a widely used sarcastic remark! I say if it can't be verified, assume the best, and rely on the reader taking things with a grain of salt (as they should do for all articles anyway). ShaneKing 13:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree here, and wikipedia:verifiability seems to suggest that the vast majority of contributors wouldn't agree here either.  It's up to the submitter to make sure that all contributions are verifiable.  If the source isn't readily available online, then it should be noted in the comments.  Anything not verifiable is subject to being moved to the talk page until someone can verify it.  IMO, it's better to risk having no information at all than to have incorrect information. Anthony DiPierro 14:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's better to risk having no information at all than incorrect information, nobody should ever add information to an article, because there's a chance it could be incorrect. Frankly, I'd rather take the attitude that people have the benefit of the doubt and it's accurate unless there's reason to think otherwise. ShaneKing 14:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a lot of leeway and deference are going to be given to regular contributors with a good reputation.  But when challenged, a non-verifiable statement should be made into a verifiable one (usually by attributing it to someone), or removed.  Also, verifiability is much less of a standard than proof.  But an article about a topic which is completely non-verifiable has no place in Wikipedia.  See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  It's basically the same policy, except at an article at a time level. Anthony DiPierro 15:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My opinion

message: We serve the readers. The readers should decide whether something belongs to the encyclopaedia or not. We should have a system to get readers comments and use them for deleting or keeping the articles. If the readers want Wikipedia to list biographies of all ants of Earth, we should allow that. We should get the opinion of all readers, or most of them, not only one or two. We cannot decide whether an article should deleted or not, if we don't ask the readers first. Optim 17:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the advantage would be in deleting something that is simply uninteresting to many people. If it is interesting to some people, or potentially interesting to even one, why not keep it? Mark Richards 05:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: We serve the readers

message: We ARE the readers of Wikipedia.  We are also the writers and editors.  The main concept is that this is not written by one group for the use of another group.  Instead, it is intended as a collaboration by the readers.  With this in mind, deleting in the manner done now is being done by the READERS. (Us) - Texture 18:18, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many more readers that the paltry few who choose to edit, my friend. I began as only a reader, after having been reccomended to use the wiki by a reader (non-editor) and I often discuss the wiki w people who read, and do not edit. Do not underestimate the silent majority ;) Jack 03:38, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: so... we should listen to those who choose not to be heard? ;P - Texture 21:42, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, the community of editors and readers.  We are among those we are here to serve and our opinion is representative of those who do not wish to be heard. - Texture 21:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: We ARE the readers

message: What does it matter what the famouness of an article, or what you believe the usfulness is. There will be someone that will want to know about it, and thats what matters. Its an encyclopedia, a library of all knowledge. killographic was deleted because its a new word, well, I'm seeing it appear more often now, and 10 games are on poll to become the first retail Adult Only rated games because of this words invention. But nope, its new, so out it goes.
If an article actually contains information on its subject, it should stay. Or, - To reverse the context - As long as it isn't gibberish, or spam, or something that isn't related to the article, it should stay. People say its a dictionary word? So are many of the articles on here. Let it grow.
Of course, pages about a nobody that was made by them should be restricted to their user lookup.
Just my 2 dollars -Fizscy46 00:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion in general

message: In theory, non-famousness is a fine reason to delete something, since it's not encyclopedic.  In practice, however, I don't believe it works.  I rarely see anon comments on VfD, and indeed that page is heavily tilted away from being "new-user friendly", full of slang and so on that takes time to pick up.  As such, I'm forced to assume that the only people who get a look at most of the candidates there are a (relatively) small group of regular contributors.  We ARE NOT a representative sample.  
Much of the time, I don't know enough about a subject to say whether or not it's famous.  For example, take the disputes over Wilfredo G. Santa.  He may or may not have been famous enough to be in the Wikipedia.  In that case, we were informed by the Spanish Wikipedia, but in the future we might have no such sources.  And I don't know enough--nor does the relatively limited community of VfD contributors--to make calls like that.  In such a situation, we have to follow the principle of least harm.  Which does more damage: deleting legitimate content and alienating contributors (which will happen, if fame is the criterion) or allowing irrelevant content to sit? Nonsense should be deleted; things should be moved to other wikis, as appropriate; bad writing should be improved; but non-famousness should not, given the constraints of reality, be a criterion for deletion.  
Meelar 05:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about others but I certainly don't vote on the basis of whether I think something is famous. At the very least I do web and usenet search to investigate, more often than not I then go over to specialized databases such as Lexis-Nexis (newspaper archive), JSTOR (academic journal archive), the catalogs of the LOC and COPAC, and numerous full-text book archives. If something is famous it invariably shows up in one of these sources. --Imran 18:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirit vs. practice

message: It's very possible for someone who isn't particularly famous to be important enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry -- a scientific researcher who's made a major medical discovery, for instance, is undeniably important, but may not necessarily be famous in the usual sense of the word. 
I think "fame" is, at best, a poor shorthand for what we're really trying to get at here. Perhaps a better word is "relevance". I mean, hell, I've created a few entries myself for people who wouldn't exactly qualify as famous by most standards, but have significant historical relevance far beyond their actual name recognition among the general public. 
This is the issue I have with an entry like Sarah Marple-Cantrell. That she's not famous isn't the problem; it's that I simply don't see why she's relevant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia (paper or not). - Bearcat 08:41, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: She is important. What makes you think she isn't? Optim·.· 19:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is she important? I just don't see it. Bearcat 20:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It would also be unverifiable. We have all the policy we need to deal with this. No More Rulecruft. Trollderella 01:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Important in a moral sense, certainly. Important to her family, absolutely. But important in the sense of "belongs in an encyclopedia"? Certainly not. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fame no, importance yes

message: I staunchly disagree, for the same reasons as others have given, with the "fame criterion" for deletion. Importance is almost impossible to define. Are sigma-algebras important, or just nifty? They certainly aren't famous.
I've been in several deletion debates, most regarding the card game  Ambition. Ambition is a game of rapidly-increasing popularity, but certainly not yet canonical like  Bridge or poker. The first Ambition page was written in (I believe) November by another author, and had many problems. At the request of many Wikipedia users (including myself) it was deleted, and I (the inventor of Ambition) was called to write a new article. The "fame debate" surfaced in the deletion debates surrounding this article.
In my opinion, fame should not be the metric of inclusion, for reasons stated above. As for "importance", I don't even know how I would define that. Who's qualified to say what's "important"? I'm not. Certainly my cat is important to me, but I wouldn't write a page for her, include her birthday under April 1 or otherwise try to establish her here. Who else is interested in my cat?
Instead, I submit the humble opinion that general interest should be the metric of what stays and what goes. For examples of how such a criterion would be applied:
Sedenions would stay. They're certainly not famous, and I'm not aware of any practical use for them (though I'm sure there is, somewhere) but they are of definite interest to mathematicians.
Ambition (card game) would stay. It contains information on the strategy and development of a somewhat well-known card game. 
Neither of the above examples are world famous, but both pertain to subjects that a new user, during his or her first visit to Wikipedia, could conceivably have enough interest in to type the queries directly into the search-box in the upper-right corner.
John Highway would be deleted. Not because it was written by its subject, but because there is very little general interest in the material on the page. 
A (hypothetical) review or summary of an unpublished novel or set of poems would be deleted. If said novel could not be accessed by any users here, why would they have interest in reading a review about it? 
An article about a high-school or strictly local band would be deleted, on a similar principle: Almost no one would have the opportunity to see this band's performances, anyway, so what general interest would such an article have? Almost none.
Likewise, these three examples are for subjects which new users, during a first visit to Wikipedia, would be highly unlikely to enter as search queries.
An interesting point was raised earlier regarding the Random Page function:
<<It is already the case that something like 1 in 5 articles in Wikipedia is a stub containing raw demographical data for an American village or town. This makes the place look bad. If we also had an article for everyone who stumbles across the site, and another one for his dog, it would look appalling.>>
Would it be possible to weight the Random Page function according to frequency of visit, so that obscure pages would come up proportionately less often?
Mike Church 23:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you decide that the few hundred mathematicians who care about Sedenions are more important than the few thousand high school students and alumni who care about any given high school band?Dfeuer 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I use Random Page semi-frequently, and always as a method of finding articles that need help.  So if anything, I'd want it to aim at neglected pages MORE effectively, not less.  Just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe two different tools could be useful, one prominent that has filters/biases to avoid stubs, very short articles, and articles that have very few edits - this would be for people that just want to browse and see if they can find something interesting to read up on with no particular agenda. Another tool could be made with almost the reverse metrics, suggesting articles at random that are likely to need editting in case someone just wants to learn something at random (from non Wikipedia sources on the net etc), and add what they learned to the knowledge here (or just reorganise and grammar check a few random articles, whatever). Sfnhltb 17:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My opinion: General interest should be the metric

message: Judging whether an article should stay or be deleted could be done by the number of links to the article.  Any comments on this?
:No of course not! The last thing we need is people spamming the encyclopedia with links to their VfD'd article in an attempt to have it not deleted. People should check backlinks before they take an article to VfD, but those links should not determine whether or not something is deleted. It's too easy to fake. Angela. 03:41, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Those added links could, and would, be deleted, of course.  Certainly anything deleted should have no links to it (with the exception of pure vandalism).  But not everything with no links to it should be deleted. Anthony DiPierro 00:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkage