Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 14

message: In order to (hopefully) put to rest the objective/subjective issue and to further draw out the theme that runs through the various notability guidelines, I propose changing the second paragraph to the following:
*Notability is an inherently subjective concept.  However, for a subject to be sufficiently notable for an article in Wikipedia, it must have an objective and verifiable sign of notability.  Receiving significant coverage in reliable and independent sources or meeting one of the agreed subject specific criteria are sufficient signs to create a presumption of notability. The table to the right lists the guidelines in specific fields where editors have reached, or are working towards, consensus regarding objective standards for general classes of topics.
While many/most of us seem to agree that notability is inherently subjective, it's important to note (and a common theme), that any article must contain some objective way to measure or test notability - an award, a listing on a major stock exchange, substantive coverage in reliable sources etc.--Kubigula (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a reasonable way to address the subjectivity issue. Notability is subjective, and trying to deny this with source counting has been rejected (what constitutes an acceptable source to count is subjective anyway). But stating that there must be objective evidence, not just "I know it" or "I like it", is appropriate. Dhaluza 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective/Subjective again 

message: I removed this sentence from the guideline because it has been orphaned in the revision process. The guideline does not address notability in terms of local or temporary interest. I have no objection to working it back in, as long as it does not detract from the main point or cause excessive bloat. Dhaluza 11:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that the inclusion of this concept is relevant.  If a topic is notable, the location and scope of its effects are not relevant to its notability.  Mother Theresa was notable; her effect was localized but her fame was global.  Whether or not she deserved more recognition than her peers is moot; because she was noticed, she is notable.  --Kevin Murray 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had put that it here to address the two most common exceptions I see to the general presumption - news items and purely local interest stories.  Murder victims are likely to get substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources and high school productions can as well.  The former is better covered in Wikinews and the latter is better not covered.  A presumption is rebuttable, and I think it adds to the guideline to give some indication of what might rebut the presumption.--Kubigula (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your concerns as completely answered by requiring sources that are both (1) secondary and (2) independent.  The news items that are an initial burst, coming immediately with the event, and purely reporting, are not secondary sources and are (should be) excluded from demonstrating notability.  High school productions are very hard pushed to receive independent secondary coverage.  Information about the event, such as a “what’s on this weekend”, is primary.  Anything published by the school, participants or parents is not independent.  --SmokeyJoe 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although coverage in multiple sources creates a presumption of notability, some topics may have such coverage yet still be of purely temporary or local interest.  For example, some news stories may be better suited for Wikinews, and certain local events may be of too narrow an interest despite some media coverage.
While this is a noble attempt to give context to the concept, it is still out of place in the current version of this guideline. Notability is defined in terms of secondary references, without addressing localization. If the definition is correct, then local interest is irrelevant to notability. If this is relevant, then the definition is not correct. Also, there is no definition of what local interest is. For example a local interest story in New York City may only affect 1 million people--does that make it not notable? Dhaluza 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought this was useful to help define the limits of the sources test - i.e. show some scenarios where the presumption might fail.  However, I acknowledge that it does create more definitional issues.--Kubigula (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But, given a PC game covered in two different magazines.  Both essentially saying that the game is an unremarkable example of it's genre.  This would suffice to pass WP:Note, despite that the sources use assert non-notability of the subject. Taemyr 05:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean like the markedly mediocre Iridion 3D? Nifboy 05:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was trying to make the point that the existence of verifiable sources is no guarantee of notability.  Iridion 3D is perhaps better used as an example of the fact that a good article can be written despite lack of notability. Taemyr 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversely, a topic may be covered in multiple sources and still be only of purely local or temporary interest. 

message: Uncle G keeps restoring the link to his user space essay which others have removed. Rather than start an edit war, though, I would like to start a discussion. I think this is really poor form, and I hope he removes it himself. Otherwise I hope someone else removes it. Many people have contributed to the discussion on this guideline, and it would be inappropriate for all of us to collect our arguments in an essay and link it from the guideline. There are also other user essays on notability, and we shouldn't link to all of them either. So this is really a case of all or none, and I vote for none. Dhaluza 12:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncle G's essay has played a rather unique role in this guideline's development.  I don't really understand the reasons for its removal.  -- Visviva 12:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a call for all or none, this is a call for quality. Unlike most people's essays on whatever topic, Uncle G's treatise on notability is enlightening and has been influential in shaping this page. >Radiant< 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: UncleG's essay was the basis for the version that was soundly rejected here.  It's his essay that ultimately caused the backlash and replacement, so Isee no need to link to it and muddy the waters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, since the current version of the page appears still to echo Uncle G's "Primary Notability Criterion" (which, if I'm not mistaken, was original with User:Uncle G/On notability).  -- Visviva 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is extremely different than Uncle G's, losing the "multiple," "non-trivial" designations, among other things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Many editors, myself included, have found the essay, and the link useful.  If you don't find it useful, don't use it, and don't click on the link. What is the harm of having the link on this page? UnitedStatesian 14:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the link is misleading, and has been found, by consensus, to not accurately describe notability.  See the March archives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, if consensus had found it to accurately describe notability, it would be a guideline. But there's no reason why a guideline can't link to a good essay. >Radiant< 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is not misleading: it takes you exactly to the page it purports to take you.  Once there, you see an essay, which is just that: an essay, one man's opinion to be used or not used as each individual editor who reads it sees fit. You still haven't explained the harm in leaving the link on the page (and if that harm is stated in the March archives perhaps do us all a favor and restate that harm here, as well as explain why the link stayed on the page for two more months).  UnitedStatesian 14:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's so very different now that we say "significant" instead of "non-trivial" and have to click on the footnote to learn that sources does actually mean more than one.  I'm sure there are a number of non-trivial (oops!  I mean significant) differences...  but it seems clear that there is still a strong genetic relationship between that page and this one.  -- Visviva 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Joe, I'm happy with the current solution which is to give an explanation along with the link, which makes it clear that it is an opinion.  --Kevin Murray 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Liking it is a pretty decent reason for keeping it in. Friday (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in a see also section and it's an essay and it's a user essay and all of that is self-evident so I find all objections on those bases unconvincing. The fact that it's been quite influential historically is a reason for keeping it. Can you point to another user essay that is linked to in just under five hundred pages. It should stay. Parenthetically, and on a concededly irrelevant, Ilikeit basis, it also gets some things right that the current page doesn't in my opinion, but I'm not traveling any further down that road, because I'll only find: here be demons.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncle G Essay 

message: I created the evidence section as a way to try to tie all the guidelines together and to address Centrx's point about needing a rationale for this guideline.  I know it may be opening a can of worms as to the whole subjective/objective issue, but I believe we all agree that some objective evidence of notability is necessary - I can't just say I am the greatest badmington player in the world, I must get some award, be covered in some badmington magazines etc, before my badmington prowess is notable.  This section takes the place of the previous rationale section and I incorporated the permanence section to address some of the bloat concerns.  The popularity section seemed unnecessary in that this concept is already covered here and in ILIKEIT.--Kubigula (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "objective evidence of notability" concept is a real breakthrough. I think trying to define notability in terms of some arbitrary sourcing criteria is problematic, as it is impossible to cover all the bases. It's also redundant to WP:V and this is one of the main objections to WP:N that is hard to counter. But requiring some objective evidence allows for flexibility in handling different types of subjects under one umbrella, and it is not redundant. Dhaluza 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you said that, because I really think this concept is the essence of the notability guidelines.  It still requires us to draw some arbitrary and subjective lines - what evidence is enough for what topic - but I find it's a useful way to consider notability across topics and subjects.--Kubigula (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "objective evidence" clause as well--it puts the ball in the court of community consensus rather than some (more)wikilawyer-able number (or pseudo-number like "multiple"). It encompasses the spirit of "non-trivial coverage" without needing a lengthy explanation of what, exactly, such a phrase means... — Scientizzle 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Every article must have some objective evidence of notability.  It's not enough for our editors to like the subject or think it's important or for the subject to think itself important.  Ultimately, there must be some evidence that third parties or peers think the subject is important or significant.  So, I think notability is largely a litmus test - you have to draw lines somewhere.--Kubigula (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective evidence section 

message: I think we need have a more descriptive name for the sources test; it makes it hard to reference the section if we don't say what it is.  It went from a "criterion" to a "presumption" (my word), then "guideline", then "criteria", before settling in its current state.  All these words are more or less synonymous, so I don't have a strong settled preference.  I see the options as the "General notability..." criterion, guideline, measure, presumption, standard, or test.  I think I like "test" the best, as it is the most succinct and descriptive.  However, "criterion" would be the most consistent with the other notability guidelines.  As I said, I don't have a huge preference, so long as we pick something.--Kubigula (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "guideline."  It matches exactly what this page is. I think "test," like "criterion," will strike some as too absoulte, more policy than guideline.  UnitedStatesian 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  You can't really argue against it being a "general notability guideline", and that's definitely a plus given the history.  I will make the change unless objections or other views emerge.--Kubigula (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added it.  UnitedStatesian 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General notability... 

message: I agree that the criterion of notability should be removed. 
I'm not familiar with the history of this debate, since I'm only an occasional contributor to Wikipedia.  However, after reading the Notability page, this talk page, and the essays for and against the guideline, and after looking at several debates on deletion of articles, I'm deeply disturbed by the direction in which Wikipedia is moving. 
There were 122 articles nominated for deletion on May 27th.  Notability/Historical/Arguments states, 'Articles are deleted daily on grounds of notability, and this has been common practice for over a year now. For some reason, "non-notable" articles (or sections of articles - which is less visible, because no formal process exists there) are being removed with zeal lately.' 
The notability criterion degrades Wikipedia by allowing deletion of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles which meet all of the core policies.  Indeed, it seems to exist solely to allow editors to delete articles which, in their opinion, should not be in Wikipedia, but which they cannot justify deleting under the core policies. 
Even if notability is accepted as a criterion, no article should be deleted on this basis without extended, thoughtful analysis and debate.  With 122 nominations on a single day, such analysis clearly is not taking place. 
The process of deleting articles as non-notable is heavily biased against occasional editors.  Indeed, Wikipedia as a whole is becoming increasingly hostile towards those who wish to contribute but cannot make a major time commitment.  This discourages new editors and reduces the motivation of existing editors outside the core group.  Why should they write an article if it may be deleted without any notification to them, based solely on a criterion which is not supported by consensus?  If they want the chance to defend their article, they must log into Wikipedia on a regular basis -- something which is not practical for the vast majority of people, especially those in the Third World. 
I assume everyone here has read Non-notability/Essay and Notability/Historical/Arguments, so I won't repeat those points.  I would, however, like to elaborate on some of them.
There is an implicit assumption that any article can be deleted unless it is defended by someone who is always on the watch for attempts to delete it -- in other words, a core editor with a commitment to that particular topic.  Unmaintained articles can be deleted simply because no one is defending them.  This is an unstated policy; as far as I know, there is no guideline that articles must be maintained, yet some editors believe this should be the case and are enforcing it.  If articles will be removed because they are unmaintained, a new policy should be debated and instituted.  This should not be done by stealth. 
Hence, use of notability as a criterion is elitist.  It carries the implicit assumption that the opinions of those who contribute frequently carry greater weight than the opinions of those who contribute less frequently.  Notability is creating an elite group of editors who are not administrators but who have the de facto ability (by taking advantage of the notability guideline) to delete the neutral, verifiable articles of other editors. 
This guideline, more than any other factor, discourages new contributors.  The concept that an encyclopedia should delete articles simply because they are non-notable is counterintuitive.  I doubt you'll find many people outside the core group of editors who agree with this concept; most are likely to be shocked by it.  (You can see this reaction on the talk pages of articles nominated for deletion as non-notable.)  Encyclopedias should be encyclopedic.  Wikipedia should include everything, save only those items which belong in another section of Wikimedia (covered by WP:NOT).  An article without enough information is a stub, waiting to be expanded.  Eventually someone will expand it.  Newcomers are much more likely to expand an existing article than to create a new one. 
The same names frequently appear on the nominations for deletion.  Evidently some editors spend a great deal of time and effort to delete others' articles.  I'm sure they believe they are improving Wikipedia by doing so.  The appearance, however, is that core editors delete the articles of occasional contributors, even if those articles are neutral and verifiable. 
The notability criterion is also discriminatory.  People with primary languages other than English (especially those which don't use the Latin alphabet) face a high likelihood that their articles will disappear.  This is particularly ironic since these are among the more valuable contributions to Wikipedia. 
Historical articles and older articles are more likely than others to face deletion.  Articles on events in the distant past which are not well known, even if they are historically quite significant, are likely to use offline sources, so a Google search may turn up little or nothing.  Editors who are not interested in history, or that area of history, are unlikely to know anything about the subject, and may therefore conclude that it is not notable.  
As articles become older, they are likely to become unmaintained (which does not mean useless or irrelevent), and links to online sources may go bad.  Hosting companies may vanish, communities disappear, and in a few decades a search will result in no hits.  At this point, the Wikipedia article may be the last website discussing the subject.  According to the notability guidelines, the article should not be deleted, because notability, once gained, is not lost.  However, guidelines mean little, and an editor who frequently deletes articles based on web searches is likely to delete the article with no analysis and no regret.  Information has been destroyed, and a historical record has been lost. 
Some may argue that the article should be deleted because no other information can be found on the subject.  It no longer has working links.  This argument is logically valid, and horrifying.  It can only stand up if the process (notability) is more important than the results (collection and preservation of knowledge).  In other scholarly endeavors, rare knowledge is treasured.  In Wikipedia, it is destroyed. 
The reasons cited for nominating articles for deletion are, frankly, frivolous.  The most common reason given is lack of results from a Google search.  This cannot be considered careful analysis by any stretch of the imagination.  The Google search may not have been thorough, and may not have been well executed.  Google may not have found all sources, and indeed doesn't search everything on the Internet.  It may not find sources in other languages, and especially those in other alphabets.  Furthermore, online sources should not be given preference over offline sources.  Many sources are not online and may never be online.  Online sources are not necessarily more reliable than offline sources; an argument could be made that offline references are usually more reliable than online ones.  Online references are, however, quicker and easier to locate, so those who are not inclined to do much research (or who are looking for justification to delete a page) usually rely on them exclusively. 
The assumption that a subject which is noteworthy has been noted is especially shortsighted.  According to the guideline, "notable" means "worthy of note."  Many things which are worthy of note have not been noted by the general public.  The desire to have a quick and easy way to determine that an article can be deleted does not show thoroughness; it shows laziness. 
Wikipedia should not be a compendium of pop culture, but the notability guideline may turn it into one. Eterry 06:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The notability guidelines are too keenly enforced and put a harsh limit on the usefulness of Wikipedia. Of course there are limits, but at the moment, the standards are set far too high. JMalky 10:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability Should Be Removed

message: Wikipedia:Notability addresses coverage by sources and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not addresses importance conveyed by sources. As I see it, a major problem is that the common person understands the term "Notability" to mean importance, no matter how clear this guideline states that "Wikipedia notability" means coverage by sources, not importance conveyed by sources. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not should be refocused to minimize any perceived overlap between the two.  The article inclusion assistance provided by these two should be distinct: 1. coverage by sources and 2. importance conveyed by sources. The analysis should be something like, even if there is sufficient coverage by reliable sources Wikipedia:Notability, do these reliable source include enough importance for the topic to overcome Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? In other words, just because Wikipedia can have an article on the topic (e.g. Wikipedia:Notability), should we (e.g., Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)? A problem with this is that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not not only addresses importance, but it serves as a catch-all for, well, everything Wikipedia is not.  In any event, the first change that I would urge is to change the name of this guideline from notability to something like Wikipedia:Source Coverage. Until this guideline's name is changed, the Wikipedia:Notability means importance vs. Wikipedia:Notability means sufficient coverage by reliable sources debate will continue. -- Jreferee 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree.  Notability does, sort of, mean importance, though "significance" would probably be a better word.  My understanding is that we avoid the word "importance", because that has too strong a connotation, which could be used to drive out a lot of content.  Coverage by sources is the best general evidence of the notability/significance/importance of a subject, but notability itself is a concept distinct from sourcing.  If notability only meant that multiple sources are required, then we should simply amend our existing sources policy to include this requirement.--Kubigula (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," so I do not see Wikipedia process as notability itself as a concept distinct from sourcing.  That's pretty much my point in a nut shell.  It is not whether I subjectively think a topic is important enough to include in Wikipedia, but whether reliable secondary sources think a topic is important enough to include a threshold amount of content in their publications.  That's what the written WP:N process says to me. If reliable secondary sources think a topic is important enough to include in their publications (as evidence by them covering the topic in their publication beyond Wikipedia's "Significant coverage" threshold amount), then that topic (article) should not deleted from Wikipedia because it is not Wikipedia notable.  It might be deleted because it falls under "What Wikipedia is not" or the emerging "BLP" deletion criteria, but it should not deleted from Wikipedia because of the Wikipedia Notability guideline.  sources policy may be used to determine what is and is not a reliable secondary source.  sources policy does not address the Wikipedia's "Significant coverage" threshold, which is covered by WP:N.  There is overlap in the processes, so there may be more than one view on what process covers what issue. -- Jreferee 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough.  I was addressing more the entire WP notability scheme, including PROF, BIO, BOOKS etc, which are incoporated here by reference.  They all require some verifiable written evidence or attribute of notability.  Significant coverage is the general threshold, but there are subject specific thresholds as well, which may be more, less, or slightly different than significant coverage in multiple sources.--Kubigula (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The guideline states "A topic is presumed to be notable if...", but it goes out of its way not state the converse, "At topic is presumed not to be notable unless...", but that's how WP:N seems to be interpreted in most of the afd discussions.    I think we are all lousy at judging notability outside our own narrow fields, and wikipedia editors are not evenly representative of the population as a whole.  If the author of a neutral article written in reasonably good faith asserts the notability of the subject matter, that assertion should be left unchallenged by anyone except a subject matter expert.  It is silly for us to have people who have never set foot in an art gallery arguing the notability of some local artist, but that's what we do all the time. Capmango 18:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jreferee tries to make sense of it all

message: Here is a statement to consider:  The author of an article generally has a better idea of the notability of the subject than the rest of us do.  The policy should be this: If an article is posted in good faith, does not have huge COI problems, is not obvious spam, it should be kept.  If it makes no assertion of notability, it should be tagged so the author is informed of the necessary of notability.  At that point, the author either realizes that the suject is not notable, and volunteers for deletion, or the author puts in an assertion of notability.
Once notability has been asserted, only a subject matter expert should challenge it.  The decision that something is not notable should be made by someone who understands the specific area as well as the author does.  I admit the price we probably pay is a few more pages covering artists who just got their first gallery showing and bands whose popularity does not spread more than 10 miles from their house, but right now we are both alienating a lot of  potential contributors and deleting a lot of perfectly notable articles that really should just be cleaned up.
Right now, we have notability police on a rampage, biting newbies left and right and blankly asserting that something is not notable just because they haven't heard of it and/or can't find it on Google.  There's an afd for a band that toured America and Europe for 10 years and has put out three albums on a notable indie label, reviews of concerts in major music publications in the U.S. and Europe, and the consensus on afd is to delete the page because the band never had a hit record.  The situation is even worse in areas where there are no clear criteria like WP:MUSIC.  We wikipedia editors don't evenly represent the population as a whole, and most of us would have no idea what (for example) makes a New York socialite notable or not notable. Capmango 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Run by experts" editing is five blocks down and take a right at :Citizendium (and indeed, from what I've glanced at it, they do handle deletion in a matter similar to that). This, however, is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", and part of editing is cutting, or proposing that a given page be cut entirely. Even if we had a way to actually verify who is a subject-matter expert, they need only source an article well (which any expert should easily be able to do on a genuinely notable topic within the field), and then no one is likely to even want to propose it be deleted, nor are they likely to succeed at it if they do. And if those sources just aren't there, then we should not have that article. We work from sources, end of story. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what I hear you saying is, "The way we do it is the way we do it, and if you have a problem with that, you should take a hike."  Okay, fair enough.  And that might even be fine if your final black-and-white statement were true in practice but it is not.  Editors in afd discussions are constantly rejecting sources because they personally aren't familiar with them (particularly if the source is offline), or saying things along the lines of "I don't care how many sources talk about X, X is just not notable".  I dunno about your statement on subject matter experts, though.  It's very common to tag an article as needing input from a subject matter expert; we're happy to look to experts to add to an article, I don't see the problem looking to an expert to help decide to delete one. Capmango 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your statement.  In my experience, the original author of an article often (not always, and not most the vast majority (replacing most with stronger word) of the time, but more than a little) has a poorer idea of the notability of a subject than the rest of us do.  Many editors have a sense of possessiveness and inclusiveness about certain subjects.  I'm not saying that all are like this, but there are more than a few who have a sense of myopia about the things that really interest them, even if they can be neutral about other things.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you do disagree with my statement.  I said an authors "generally" have a better idea of the notability than the rest of us, and you said that authors "more than a little" (but not most of the time) have a poorer idea.  I agree with you, which is why I didn't say that the author should be the last word on notability.  What I'm trying to say is that controversies over notability should be debated by people (like subject matter experts and presumably the author) who have a reasonable level of familiarity with the subject of the article in question. Capmango 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I strongly disagree with saying that they generally have a better idea.  Most of the time they don't either. Sorry, I guess I was just trying to be too diplomatic and spoke too softly.  I have modified my statement accordingly.  I had a longer reply to your further statements, but I suppose that the best way to put it is:  In my experiences, enough people who have asserted their expertise on a given subject have been mistaken that I can't stand by your position as it's expressed.  And this doesn't just apply to the notability of a given subject.  I've seen rather hostile reactions come from experts when improvement to an article to make it more accessible is suggested.  Perhaps your experiences have been different.  Mine haven't been conducive to trusting the experts. FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's define things a little more precisely.  By "idea of notability", we may mean "opinion of the degree of notability," or we may mean "awareness of relevant information about the notability."  I was more talking about the second of those, I think you may be talking about the first.  I agree that an author who is close to the subject may have a lack of objectivity about the notability of his/her subject.  But those of us who are in theory more objective are also generally less informed.  The ideal arbiter in a case like this is someone who has the objectivity of an outsider and the subject-matter awareness of an insider.  We have too many discussions in afd where an author establishes notability of his/her through references to outside sources, and we all say, "gee, I never heard of that source, so I'll assume it is neither reliable nor independent and I reject it". Capmango 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the absence of people who are both fully-informed and fully-neutral on a subject, I'm afraid I must choose in favor of asking those who claim to know better to make their case.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefit of the Doubt 

message: Hello all,
Countries such as Canada, Australia, have a well defined point system to decide whether a person is eligible to receive Permanent Residency or not. 
If a similar point system can be devised for inclusion/deletion of articles it will reduce the energy spent on discussion and help in quick decision making.
Notability as such can remain one of the point scorer for an article. If every university article on a subject carries 5 points, and an wikipedia super-editor approval carries another 10 points etc. We simply need to set a inclusion threshold for articles, instead of ambiguous and contradicting guidelines which I believe currently is frustrating editors and giving undue advantage to deletionists.
Instead of random discussions on topics, if the criteria of inclusion can be defined in a checklist/objective manner, a lot of voluntary manpower can be put to better use.
Amit 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's pretty much my thought process as well, Seraphimblade. -- Jreferee 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point system for article inclusion NOT notability alone.