Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.1

Proposal A.1: Every spin-out is notable

Proposal: A spin-out article is treated as a section of its parent article. If a parent article is supported by reliable third-party sources, then its sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources to qualify for inclusion. A sub-article is notable when it extends one section of a notable parent article.


Rationale: It is not desirable to delete sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources. It makes more sense to treat those articles as extended components of their parent articles. Splitting content from an article into sub-articles is a practice recommended by the recommended length of articles and summary style approach. By treating sub-articles as though they were sections in the larger article, this would allow editors to write detailed articles on specialized topics.

Support A.1

1. Support because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Tentatively support. I don't think its wise to enshrine "sub-articles do not need reliable third-party sources" without the explicit clarification (which I assume is implicitly there): "sub-articles do still require a source/sources." Logic would suggust that any split section will include a reliable source (third party or otherwise), to support the information included in it; for a list of episodes, the programme itself would be a good enough source for the separate article. On its own, it wouldn't meet notability levels, but episode lists' notability are rightly that of the programme, and thus the domain of the programme's article - which should then rightly be transferred. In other cases also, this proposal should indeed - with the above caveat that sources are still obviously required in some form - be form the baseline from which (as User:Nsk92 notes, below) articles can then still be considered on a case-by-case basis. Doesn't the proposal merely say that sub-articles (essentially split from the parent) be considered part of the parent. Which is what they were before they were split (likely for reasons of length alone). It doesn't say that any-old source-less article can be created, merely that spun-off sections don't require new notability inquisitions. So (if I understand it rightly) the proposal simply allows for the preservation of useful information despite concerns of length.
   It is reasonable to assume (since common sense and 'good faith' must be the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia work) that : a) An article contains sources and that b) Sourced sections within that article are of worth. Logicially it follows then, that the only consideration is that of length, and that the information is important and sourced. So, if it is notable-as-part-of-the-parent-article, then it is notable on its own, with notability absolutely transferrable to a split/sub-article, as proposed.
   The rationale currently says "It is not desirable to delete sub articles with a lack of appropriate sources." That implies (and should explicitly say) that there are still sources, merely not enough to independantly meet some interpretations of notability criteria. In that case - sources nonetheless being present in some form - it's reasonable not to consider a sub-article independant, and thus to transfer the use of the extra-sources-that-prove-notability from the parent article.
   Plus, while User:Simetrical's blanket statement is perhaps going too far, the often-petty-minded deletions and information-losing-mergers are absolutely against the spirit of a LIMITLESS Encyclopedia of all knowledge, which Wikipedia should be. Frankly, I would rather support the removal of length requirements, but this is probably the next best thing. ntnon (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support' with the same caveat as Ntnon gives--there must be some adequate reliable source appropriate to the subject. Otherwise its a free-for-all. I don't think anyway is really proposing to eliminate WP:RS. The point of this is that the division into "articles" is inherently arbitrary. There is no intrinsic difference between a part of an article and a subarticle except the header and screen display. I look forward to a new Wikpedia 2.0 where the material is a a truly modular atomic database, and material can be present without regard to "articles" But we're still trying to look like a paper encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Qualified support (if rewritten, plus further caveat) Rewrite to address concerns of DGG, et al. It cannot reasonably go forward in a way that can be misinterpreted as "WP:RS does not apply", only "WP:N does not apply to this sub-article separately, only to the summary-style article and its legitimate progeny as a whole". The further caveat: It also must not undermine the concept that many subarticles are perfectly valid targets of AFDs that merge them back into their parent articles. This is very important, as many topics are subject to incredibly excessive fanwankery (cf. the now-ancient Pokemon issue, with articles for every minor character). Nothing about this draft clarification should interfere with the ability of AFD (or editors in general acting boldly and with common sense) to merge wanky articles back into main articles (including with a loss of "information" if necessary - many such selectees for merge operations are full of blathery trivia that serves no encyclopedic purpose). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'd go one further. For the vast majority of sub-articles, merging upward in case of cruft should be able to be done without need for AfD, and the subsequently orphaned sub-articles can readily be speedied if they remain blanked and orphaned for a reasonable amount of time without rancor. If anything, a proposal along these lines should make the removal of cruft and fanwank faster and more efficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Support in principle, although like other respondents more thought needs to be given to how this would work in practise. Certainly if we agreed on a word limit for plot summary we may have a better step on the road. Hiding T 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Strong support per common sense. We are a papeless encyclopedia after all and the "sum of human knowledge." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Strongly support the idea of weakening notability and reliable sources guidelines for spin-off pages. Content of spin-off pages is generally more effortful and takes much longer to furnish with sources, a problem much more ominous for the spin-off than the original article, leaving the spin-off vulnerable to being picked off by an AfD despite the fact that nobody minded it when it was still a part of the original article. --Muna (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Strongly support everything must be taken in context, and treating sub-articles as non-notable is taking them out of context. Whether to split or merge content is an editing decision that should be based on how to best present the material in a readable and organized fashion--notability should not be the primary consideration. Note that this is (and must remain) a distinct concept from notability is not inherited, which is a different concept. Dhaluza (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support, per Muna. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support with the very important qualification that the material could be justified as a separate section. There are downsides to making articles as long as you would find in the Britannica Macropedia, and notability guidelines should not be getting in the way of good organization. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support because non-support will disincentivize splitting articles into reasonably sized components, incentivizing too-long articles. --R27182818 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. Naturally, as others have said, it needs to be a good idea to have a separate article. However, if the subject of the spinoff article is best covered by a separate article, then it should "inherit" notability from the parent article. Croctotheface (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I can see potential for lots of subarticles, but rather this than no subarticles whatsoever. Article length should be the guiding factor. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. It makes sense to me that an article that compliments and expands upon a notable topic should be left. Deleting such articles is deleting content that can improve this encyclopedia. Why delete articles that compliment others simply because a guideline says we should? Scottydude _review 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Partial Support spinoffs need to be treated differently than the parent article as to notability requirements, but the article still needs to be fully supported and referenced or it becomes nothing more that orignal research which is not allowed. Referencing and notability are different but closely related issues. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Qualified support As others have said, the spinouts should still conform to WP:RS. I just don't think it's necessary for them to satisfy WP:N. In other words, the content in a spinout just needs to be verifiable; the spinout topic doesn't have to be the "primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party sources". (Of course, some common sense should be applied. If the content of a spinout can be merged into another article without losing any information, we might as well just merge it, unless it is evident that a spinout can be expanded.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong support. If it's a spin-off article of a parent article, then the parent article, by definition, should serve to contain all the "proof" needed to establish notability. Spin-off articles are considered necessary because of the general bias (not necessarily an unfounded one) that Wikipedia articles should only be a certain length; but in many cases additional information can and should be presented in a break-away/spin-off article. But there doesn't need to be a repetition of sources given to establish general notability. To verify information, yes. 23skidoo (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Qualified support. Since spin-offs are mainly used to organize larger articles and avoid having huge walls of text in the main article, forcing strict notability guidelines on spin-offs might result in people just keeping all that information in the main article instead, and we'd end up with some pretty ugly articles. So spin-offs ultimately help keep Wikipedia clean and readable. Of course, if someone writing a spin-off can add good sources for notability, that is desirable...it just shouldn't be required. How about this addendum to the proposal: spin-offs can inherit notability from their parent articles, but are automatically barred from WP:GA and WP:FA unless they have their own sources for notability as well? That way we can still have spin-offs available to keep parent articles from becoming unwieldy, but editors would be encouraged to write quality spin-offs anyway.--Politizer (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Support In my mind, the only test for inclusion to Wikipedia should be "Can a Reliable Source be found to back up the article." I am therefore in favor of lowering notability requirements in any way possible. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support because I strongly oppose notability requirements at all. Crowley666 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support for various reasons already listed that I'm not going to waste your time by repeating.Abyssal (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support For reasons outlined above particularly the improvement of organization of existing articles. Other Wikipedia guidelines impose more sensible constraints than this one. Why have a proliferation of non-Wikipedia Wikis available on-line when their material can be located in an organized fashion right here?--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Spin out articles should only exist when the main topic has so much content that it spills into a second article because of length. So the main article should be notable enough to have plenty of reliable sources, which means that there should be enough sources to adequately source the spinout. I can't imagine a scenario where there theoretically isn't enough reliable sources for the spinout. Royalbroil 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    It can happen when overzealous fans write extremely detailed and OR-filled pages on every minor character, etc., in a work of fiction (similar to the Pokemon debacle that SMcCandlish mentioned above, in this thread). I mentioned an example of that in my comment here lower on this page. --Politizer (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    Of course the OR and overly-detailed text would need to be removed and the article re-evaluated. The definition of OR would need to be decided by the community on a case-by-case basis. Royalbroil 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

24. Support Detailed articles on specialized topics are desirable.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Reliable sources should be considered sufficient to demonstrate a need for an article's existence.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Support with caveat The spin-off article can only be traceable to its reliable sources if the article points back to the main article that cites those sources, so the policy needs to be rewritten to include that condition. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Support with caveat (similar to WikiDan61 above): In-text citations are still very useful and important, and most articles of non-stub length need these anyway to provide notability. However, if citations in the parent article are enough to provide that notability, I would like to see footnote/cite additions to the child article that at least point back to the parent, e.g. <ref>See [[Parent article name]]</ref> for statements of fact that were backed up by the parent article's citations. Todd Vierling (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Support as there is no functional difference between a subsection of an article and a subarticle. The constraints and practices that define paper encyclopedias are being followed here only out of habit. It is tiresome for both sides of this argument to trot out WP:PAPER one more time, but it really is the guiding light here. No one, that I can tell, among those who oppose such a proposition is arguing that the information in the kind of sub articles we're talking about should be removed from Wikipedia, just that there is an arbitrary limit on how it should be displayed. So the opposing argument, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, does not apply, since most everyone agrees the information being talked about here is largely valid. Most of the the opposers seem to me to be saying that there is some information we should have, that is valuable to the encyclopedia, but that is undeserving of, for some reason, its own URL. Our primary responsibilities to our readers, after factual accuracy, are usefulness and ease of use. We should strive to keep our articles lean and tight, while allowing space to expand upon topics as needed. And I don't understand why using sub articles to do that is being frowned upon. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Conditional support This is a good guideline for article extensions that deal with generally uncontroversial subjects, e.g. albums of notable artists, fictional characters from novels and television shows, etc. There is a need to provide information about these subjects; it is of obvious encyclopedic worth to, for instance, provide a detailed track listing of the albums released by any notable musician. If the length of the parent article necessitates it, or if aesthetics favor it, moving these to a sub-article should be allowed without needing to provide a raft of independent critical commentary to support them. Chubbles (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Support within reason. Per WP:NNC anything suitable for a subpage should be includable in the main article. As long as we're appropriately applying WP:SIMPLE, problematic issues shouldbe minimized.
31. Support. Notability considerations in these cases are a waste of Wikipedia contributors' time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong support. If the notability of the main article has been proven, a non-stub spin out focusing on details is notable per se. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Support The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. While I don't like the concept of inherited notability, I think the problem posed and the solution are very reasonable. We may need to provide some additional guidance one how this can be used to reduce the chances of abuse as some of the oppose comments have suggested could happen. We need to find some way to strike a balance between overly long articles and a freedom to break out sections. Likewise, it may be reasonable to break out sections of articles within a project so that like material can be categorized together and still be available to readers of the main article. This may also address the issues that some readers have with long tables in many articles that are not interesting to them and make reading the article 'harder'. Maybe the compromise here is to not allow this breakouts at the encyclopedia level, with maybe some exceptions. But instead allow the projects to develop specific project related guidelines on what material can or should be broken out. Rather then starting new standalone articles, we should consider that these breakouts be subpages of the main article. So I guess I support the concept and see that an open discussion lke this could result in improvements in readability. While notability would be inherited, that would not eliminate the need to meet WP:V and maybe as a part of any final proposal a condition of any breakout might be some requirement for meeting WP:V. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Support To me, the inherent test is, do the sources listed on this subarticle and on the main article support what's being said? Essentially, we're avoiding the situation of copying over all of the sources into these sub-articles, especially since there will inevitably be cases where people copy over ones they're not sure of "just in case" and we wind up with a bloating of sources that have little to no relevance. I will note the additional caveat that for many sub-articles, particularly when you get into the games and their lists of characters, the source is often essentially the topic of the main article, which may not qualify as a third party. For example, playing through Kingdom Hearts, you get a biography of every character in-game. Is that a notable source? I think this question is going to have to be answered and will eventually lead to contention. -Fuzzy (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. The idea makes perfect sense to me because there are certain subjects of certain articles that do merit a significant mention, but don't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability (like celebrities' relatives who are in show business or band members). If the subjects of the sub-articles rise to notability equal to the parent article, then they should get a full, independent article. Also, there is the issue of some articles being too long and yet too important to condense, as some people have stated above. A perfect example of that would be the MTV article, which has a sub-article on Criticism of MTV or Beyonce's parents, who have their own articles as well. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

    The first of these clearly passes current notability requirements, so no problem there. The second is more of the type of borderline case which this proposal might affect. It seems to me that we don't want to have articles on people parent just because the child is notable. In this case its likely that the would pass current notability requirements, with a bit of digging plenty of refs could be found to the person who designed Beyonce's cloths. Other parents might not pass the current tests. --Salix (talk): 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

37. Support, a good formulation of the concept that notability shouldn't force us into undesirable article structures to prevent information from being deleted; prefer the next though. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Support, but we will need more detail on defining subpage to prevent content forks and content that should have been included on the main page. However from working on WP:AFC most new pages proposed or accepted are not sub pages, but stand alone. OR also is to be avoided, which could cut out the pure fancruft. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support because I oppose notability requirements in general. It is nearly always a subjective argument. Captainclegg (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support because I strongly oppose notability requirements at all. Crowley666 (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Strong support. I've seen more than enough articles getting extracted from large pages and then getting deleted because they aren't inherently notable. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Strong support from the standpoint that anything that helps retain subjects that are only referenced via New/Alternative Media sources can only help improve the depth of the Wiki.BcRIPster (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.1

1. Oppose Spin-out articles should be treated rather cautiously since they often constitute WP:content forks and, on occasion, WP:POV forks. These issues need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and, as necessary and appropriate, covered by specialized notability guidelines. The point is, notability is not the only consideration in deciding whether or not a particular topic merits a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   of course it isnt, but notability is what we'reconsidering. In practice, spin out articles of the sort being discussed here ar rarely content forks--they are usually more in the nature of subarticles. DGG (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Probably correct, but even for subarticles I believe it is important to be able to prove their notability in a way independent of the parent article. This does not mean that the subject of a subarticle necessarily needs to receive coverage that is quite independent from the subject of the parent article. But it does mean that one needs to be able to demonstrate notability of the subject of a subarticle as if the parent article did not exist. Otherwise one can easily have a wild prolifiration of subarticles corresponding to minor and fairly insignificant components of wider subjects. For example, say we are talking about some reasonably famous film that clearly is notable in its own right. Does that mean that the topic of special effects in this film is sufficiently notable for its own article? Or costume design? Or sound work? Or the work of a particular stunt-man in this film? Or perhaps some particular event that happened during the shooting of the film? (e.g. the two lead actors getting into a fight). If one accepts that all spin-outs are notable, then the answers to all these questions are always "yes", assuming there is enough data to pass WP:V (which there often is, e.g. from the special features section on the DVD of the film question). In reality the answers should depend on particular circumstances. For films like Star Wars and LoTR the topic of special effects there is notable enough for a separate article. For most other films it probably is not. Things of this nature should be hashed out in SNGs which can and should define in greater detail how notability for subtopics is to be established, but accepting the principle that all spin-outs are notable would be very counter-productive. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Also, can be used to violate the "notability is not inherited" principle, which is one of the cornerstones of WP:N and all the other notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   In what way is that phrase a cornerstone? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   • It is a cornerstone in the sense that if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Articles cannot tailgate or cling too each others coattails; they have to prove their worth by complying with WP:N.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose I agree with Nsk92, as the opportunity to create spinout articles which utilise the same content is almost limitless. An example of a POV/Content fork where this has already happened is The Terminator: current forks are Terminator (character), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (franchise). Basically all these articles cover the same ground, but from different angles. It may be obvious to an "expert" which article is the true Terminator article, but Wikipedia is not the place for expert opinion, rather it is the citation of reliable secondary sources that provides evidence that the subject is notable rather than a POV/content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   That is a problem with NPOV on those articles. This proposal makes no effort to supplant NPOV. Those articles would be valid merge/delete targets under this proposal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   How do you know these articles are based on NPOV? They all cite primary and secondary sources. You say that the various Terminator articles would be valid merge/delete targets, but what criteria would you use? If every spinout is notable, then you do not have any rationale to merge or delete any of them. If you have come up with inclusion criteria that could be used to merge or delete spin-out articles that are different to WP:N, then you should state them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think that's a major misinterpretation of the proposal. That it can be misinterpreted and needs revision is a major part of my theme at my qualified support !vote above (#4). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   • It is not a misrepresentation at all. The issue of identifying what topics deserve their own article is addressed by the inclusion criteria set out in GNG. Since any topic can be sliced and diced into any number of articles and sub-articles, the problem (illustrated by the Terminator example given above) of which ones to include, and which one to merge or discard won't go away, in fact sub-articles would make it worse if they are all deemed to be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose A bucket with a logic hole. Almost any modern-day TV show XYZ can serve as an example; they obviously deserve a wiki article. Most editors will also agree that List of XYZ episodes is a suitable article ("list") for wikipedia, and that it (or its lead) can be expanded with dozens of third-party sources. So, if this proposal gets accepted, this means all its dozens and sometimes hundreds of episodes (sub-articles of the List of episodes) get a wildcard for their own article and can be as plotty, crufty and ORish as fans wish even though no producer commentary or third-party sources exists *at all*. No, thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Untrue. This proposal merely says that the standards for the length of plot description and the like should be based on our consideration of the overall topic, and use our content policies. If a section is OR or violates WP:PLOT it can still be shortened and removed, and if it is shortened and removed such that it is no longer substantial enough for its own article, it can and should be merged with a parent article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I agree. The reason to have sub-articles is to prevent writing an article that is so long it takes 10 minutes to scroll to the bottom. It's why the more popular TV shows and such things have more than one article. IMO embedded lists and subsections that are more than two pages long should be split into a subarticle. The idea of independant notability is amazingly awkward to demonstrate. As an example, we have the predator technology article. It's a list of tech items used by the Predators. Why is it seperate? It's several pages and the Predator article is long enough without it. Requiring people to demonstrate "independant notability" seems to require the subject to be notable based on sources that 'exclude the main article's material. why? I don't get it. It makes little sense to me. If a subject is significant enough to have sufficient well documented material for a full size article, why not actually give it an article?--Marhawkman (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

   Right, untrue, you are assuming the answer to the problem. The question is whether many characters--perhaps 5,000 or 50,000 of the possible 5 million or so counting all forms of classic and contemporary fiction, do in fact warrant separate articles to provide adequate coverage, and whether we should consequently define our article standards in such a way as to include them. There's a difference in episodes too, between whether its Star Trek or [insert your own example of the worst garbage here]. DGG (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   See the caveats in my qualified support !vote above (#4) for how to resolve this issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Too broad. Protonk (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Far too broad. I think we need to institutionalize "List of episodes" and "List of characters" as a compromise, and stop there.Kww (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   That still savages our coverage of areas, delivering a big "fuck you" to those who actually use the encyclopedia in these areas. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   Only in the sense that Encyclopedia Brittanica has delivered a big "fuck you" to TV Guide subscribers.Kww (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I was unaware of a past period where the Encyclopedia Brittanica provided coverage of this area, and where articles on fictional subjects were a major part of its coverage and formed several of its most popular articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose Goes too far. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per Dave. It only invites abuse. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   So we write a policy that prevents such abuse. I don't think this proposal says that the text above is all that will ever be said on the matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose Notability is not inherited. Virtually every detail from an article can be split out into its own article. The only reasonable-objective criterion that prevents this is the requirement for non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   The inherited notability aspect is really misleading. The proposal is better understood as "Our limits on article length, which come from screen readability and browser limits, should not be hard limits on the depth of coverage of a subject. Topics should be covered in the depth that they would be covered if there were no article length limits, and then intelligent decisions should be made about how to split up the coverage." So the operative policies become the ones that govern what does and doesn't get covered in a single article. Which is something that, looking at the articles we have, we do an OK job with. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Gavin. Deamon138 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose This would just be too imprecise. Virtually any article can attach itself to another article. We need something much more specific, or else we open the floodgates to millions of non-notable, unverifiable articles. Randomran (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    I am appalled by this. You of all people know the difference between the proposal I offered and the one described here. You know full well that this is a more specific proposal that you cut down to RFC size. To oppose it because of lack of specificity when you are the one who stripped the specificity out is appalling, and speaks to the degree to which this RFC is a meaningless charade. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    The meaning between this proposal and yours are essentially the same. And judging by the lack of support, I doubt people are opposing this on some kind of technical wording issue. The spirit of this proposal is just fundamentally flawed: allowing notability to be inherited between articles is going to open the floodgates. Randomran (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    No, the meanings are not the same. Phil asked that the article length not be taken into account when writing it, that certain logical breaks be observed when deciding how to distribute the article over several pages. That has been turned into an unsupportable "inherited notability" prop that doesn't mention base articles or length or sufficient sources. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    And making article length a non-factor in producing new sub-articles... that would change the opinions of those who are opposed to creating an indefinite number of poorly sourced sub-articles? I sincerely doubt it. Randomran (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Those sub-articles would be even easier to deal with under this proposal - remove poorly sourced crufty material outright. Since the pages would be treated as sections of a larger article, to my mind blanking them if they are crap is wholly acceptable. No AfD necessary - any more than an AfD is needed to remove a fanwanky in-universe section in an existing article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    A technical difference that doesn't fix the problem of huge pages with zero reliable third-party sources. Listen... There's literally nothing stopping you from proposing your own compromise at WT:N once this RFC is done (or even before the RFC if you're self-righteous enough to disrupt other efforts to compromise). And if this proposal of notable subarticles were gaining a decent amount of support, I might even recommend it. You'd be perfectly within your right, and why would anyone stop you? But from one Wikipedian to another, I advise you to not waste your effort. If the opposition continues to be as strong as it is, I doubt you're going to sway a sudden consensus with one or two technical changes. Randomran (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ignoring all philosophical differences between the subarticle described in this proposal and Phil's suggested approach, the primary difference is that Phil's suggested method has some type of clear visual indicator that the subarticle belongs to a larger topic (either though the "/" sub-article method, leading templates, or some other means. That actually is a significant difference in the sense that a new user, unaware of how WP:N came to be but that it exists, might avoid tagging a sub-article under Phil's scheme since it has been visually shown to be something else. It is technically not the same, though potentially the same facets of problems come into play. --MASEM 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose This is a minor fig leaf papering over a proposed policy allowing everything under the sun. GRBerry 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose; notability is not transitive, and this just invites parasitic "notability justifications" for fancruft. — Coren ^(talk) 12:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. For information to be split out into a separate article, it should be verifiable, meaning it comes from multiple reliable sources. If reliable independent sources don't discuss the topic, it does not need to be a separate article. If the section is too big in the parent article, then per WP:WEIGHT it should be trimmed to fit, based on what the reliable independent sources say. Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. This simply goes too far. Giving "spin-off" articles carte blanche will result in a plethora of articles with problems such as (lack of) verifiability, original research, and non-neutral point of view. I'm not saying that every spin-off will have all these problems, but if there is no set limit, many such articles will invariably appear. I think most of us agree that there needs to be some sort of line drawn, and we merely disagree on where that line should stand. This appears to be a "no-line" proposal. Something more moderate is needed. Pagrashtak 04:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose - every article is in a sense a spinout; giving spinouts an exemption from notability requirements would remove notability as a criterion from every article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose - effective notability guidelines are necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose In this form it is equivalent to abandoning WP:N (a different question altogether), for anything imaginable can be reached by stream of consciousness from something notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Current criteria are fine and work well. Anyone who is having problems reaching WP:NN concensus can always nominate the article for AfD and see what the community thinks. Usually the best way to deal with notability. fr33kman (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose - per the above. Effectively demolishes NOTE in favor of a giant set of articles that have problems satisfying WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    I am curious. What viewpoint, and particularly what minority viewpoint does a plot summary advance? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose Far too broad. This has an impact beyond elements of fiction, which is what motivated this RfC. This gives free license to any spammer, POV pusher, and promoters of fringe theories to write all they want, without being constrained by the GNG. All they have to do is connect whatever article they have to something that is notable. There needs to be a crap filter, and the GNG is a good one, and one that can be implemented fairly. --Phirazo (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose. WP:N has two purposes: First, restricting Wikipedia to topics for which encyclopedic coverage is possible; second, restricting our scope to a level that is maintainable. This proposal counteracts both: It would allow topics to grow beyond the level that can be attributed to secondary sources, effectively giving up the principles of an encyclopedia. And it would allow virtually any level of detail coverage on any topic (that can always be a spin-out of some other), giving up all bounds of our scope. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose - the distinction between a spin-out and a new article will be unclear at times, and adopting this rule would be a blanket invitation to wikilawyering. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose Where would the spin-offs stop? Captain panda 02:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose While we're on the topic of spin-offs, can someone please review my new article on the guitar solo of song released by my favorite band member of my favorite band which has a one-sentence article? After all, if the band is notable, the notability is inherited to the solo, is it not? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose I believe that a spin out article, when not followed by reliable sources, gives improper weight to a subject that goes against the standards of this encyclopedia. I strongly believe that all entries need reliable third-party sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Opppose too broad and would never be ending. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Unless the sub-article provides no more information that the main article, then it makes additional claims. Those claims need to be referenced to demonstrate validity and notability. The Goodyear Blimp is notable. The (made-up) fact that the tail letters are painted in 18-inch letters in black IR-reflecting paint in the font Helvetica is not notable. Notability of additional information is not inherited. If the main article has references that support a claim made in the sub-article but not in the main article, the reference can be copied. One of the premises of this discussion is that "there is no practical limit to" the amount of information that can be placed in Wikipedia. Hence why not take the additional trouble to make the applicable references? Bongomatic (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Strong oppose The GNG reads "If a topic has received significant coverage...it is presumed to be a suitable article topic". This makes perfect sense in itself and it must be implied further that every article deals with its own "topic"; that is, articles don't share topics. Without this, a reduction to the absurd would be perfectly acceptable, as articles could be created about subtopics of subtopics of subtopics of something that barely passes the notability requirements. For example, a third cousin twice removed of the grandfather of the Queen of England would deserve his/her own article, no matter how notable he/she really is. Themfromspace (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Every article needs to meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, the content requirements that the Notability guidelines are intended to help interpret. If we are breaking out a section of an article due to length, then surely there is a section with reliable sources that can be broken out. If we are breaking out a section because it may be notable on its own then that should be demonstrated or remain part of the parent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose.Agree wirth 'where will it end' type arguments. For instance, Automotive suspensions are a notable subject, that article is easily referneced. Particular types of suispension, likewise. Particular implementations of particular suspensions, likewise. "My car has got a macpherson's strut" is not a suitable article. OK, maybe that was a bad example.Greg Locock (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose. In general, if someone is breaking a long article into two pieces, having some remnant of notability in both pieces is exactly what I would be looking for in deciding where to make the break. Small exceptions don't mean that that shouldn't be the guideline; they mean that it should be a guideline, rather than policy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose too broad and imprecise, leading to potential misinterpretation. In any case, every article should be able to stand by itself and on its own, fork or not. —kurykh 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Stong Oppose This would lead to an incoherent mess. The approach described works, to a certain extent, for Microsoft's encyclopedia and Answers, but it wouldn't work at all here due to WP:OWN - Every article, regardless of its origins, should be required to be reliably sourced to prevent WP:OR and fancruft and to keep them maintainable by new editors. The situations described are situations where the text should be aggressively trimmed and/or axed, not split out into an article of splitcruft, or whatever we'll end up calling it if this happens. MrZaius^talk 05:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose "Spin-out" articles should not get special treatment. They are subject to exactly the same proof-of-notability requirements as any other article. In fact, there should be no concept of "spin-out" articles at all; articles are articles. —Angr 06:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Strongly Oppose If the material contained in a "spin-out" article was verified when it was part of the "main article", then the source has already been found and can be cited. If a new "spin-out" article is created with new material, then either it is using the same source as the "main article", which should thus be cited, or there is no source and it is unverified material. I do not see the argument for a special case at article level. Consider that individual sections and even sentences in articles can be challenged and deleted for having no citation, so an article (even if it is for some reason considered a "spin-out") must be treated the same way. Obviously this needs applying with common sense as per wp:ignore, an article or stub should not be deleted because no-one has bothered to put in an obvious citation. Babakathy (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose Far too broad, invites abuse, such as articles on minute subjects which are slightly related to the parent articles.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
37. Strong oppose each article should be reliable and notable in and of itself, that means ensuring adequate third-party sources for each. DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Strong oppose. Notability should be established for any section regardless if it is within a larger article or spun out on its own. Binksternet (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose every article should satisfy the criteria for inclusion/retention in Wikipedia in its own right. Allowing articles to inherit criteria from other articles is only an open invitation to abuse. Nick Thorne ^talk 08:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose - agree with comments above, likely to lead to original research and fancruft. Some exceptions may be possible; for example, breaking up an article by periodisation might make sense, and there may not have been a consistent approach to this to adhere to, but there should still be sufficient sources for what is in the article to demonstrate its importance. Warofdreams talk 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Oppose Regardless of the formatting choice, any topic that's large enough to deserve more than a couple of sentences ought to have sources. It's inconceivable that we could write a whole section, let alone a whole article, containing nothing which requires referencing. SP-KP (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose We simply don't need individual articles on every character that appeared for 1 second in a single Star Wars movie. Whilst that may not be the definition of a spinoff that will be used to justify that sort of behaviour --Blowdart | ^talk 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
43. Strongly Oppose. If a spun-out article is to be treated as a sub-section of the parent, how does that mean it doesnn't need sourcing and should not be deleted. Completely unreferenced subsections within an article can be deleted, and often are. If a subtopic is not in itself notable enough to be sourced, the subsection should never have been allowed to grow enough to need splitting, and the split should be opposed beforehand or deleted afterwards. The logic of this proposal makes no sense at all!Yobmod (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose - By this proposal we would be encouraging spin-off articles with no reliable sources at all to be written, and that would lower the authenticity of Wikipedia.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose -- far too broad in scope. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Oppose This would in part legitimize POV forks without specific wording added. And notability definatly cannot be inherited. If a section is long enough to merit being split off, and it does not contain reliable third party sources to establish notability on it's own, then it probably should not have been included in the main article to begin with... Charles Edward 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Oppose -- If this was the case, it would be far too easy to (say) spin out articles for each contestant in a series of soemthing like Big Brother or American Idol; whilst some contestants go on to build a notable career (and then fulfill notability criteria in their own right), some just disappear back to obscurity, and not notable in their own right. -- ratarsed (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose Every article should be notable in itself. I also don't see how we can not force references, as that would violate WP:V. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}
49. Per sguereka and Nsk92. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Oppose I agree with Black Falcon, just because a particular article is notable does not inherently mean that it's sub articles are. For example, one of the articles on my watchlist is AT&T CallVantage. This is a discontinued service provided by AT&T. Granted AT&T is considerably notable, but judging by the article content, the fact that it's being discontinued by AT&T (well, not accepting new customers) and that there are no references to 3rd party sources makes this article not notable in my opinion. If this was any other service, besides an AT&T one, it would have been Speedied 1 day after it's creation. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
51. Oppose Each article should be notable and verifiable on its own. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
52. Oppose This will open a bucket full of worms. For example, as someone above points out, this would automatically give the all-clear to create articles for all episodes, all characters (major/minor), all locations etc. in all TV series, films and cartoons already on Wikipedia. No thank you. Each article must stand on it's own in terms of notability. _TalkIslander 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
53. Strong Oppose In essence this would mean a multiplication of the acceptable space for a topic by the number of its sections or in case of lists the number of its items. And for which parent articles? Articles with a hundred references, or just ten? Especially in fiction, there are articles on works that are tiny in comparasion to the length or the work itself and the number of its characters/episodes/chapters. Should a small 30k article with 30 references provide notability for hundreds of kilo byte of supporting articles and lists, filled mostly with plot details and trivia? -- Goodraise (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
54. Oppose Far too broad, each and every article must stand on its own and meet the notability requirements. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
55. Strong Oppose Everything in article space needs reliable sources. Every article, eveny section, every sentence, every bullet point, every list item. This is extremely simple: If it can't be reliably sourced, it can't be part of Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
56. What Andrew Lenahan said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
57. Oppose Content should always be supported by reliable sources, spin out or not. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
58. Strongest Possible Oppose - Notability is not inherited, and needs to pass each and every article or list criteria on its own with no help from another article. This is a foundational principle, and keeps this from being a junk encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
59. Oppose A stand alone article appears in a Google search; this public exposure indicates the need for the rigorous scrutiny of the notability guidelines. Part of the decision process to break out a section of a parent article into a stand alone article should be the notability of the topic. If the topic does not meet notability requirements but is too large for the parent article, that might be an indication that the section itself needs trimming. SilkTork *^YES! 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
60. I must oppose this. While content forks are acceptable in certain situations, it causes more problems then a regular article. Many times when a content fork is spinned out of the regular article, it's either one-day and tabloid news stories which clearly doesn't belong in a encyclopedia and at times violate WP:BLP, lets say an article on Paris Hilton personal life or an article on yesterday's Philadelphia Phillies - Florida Marlins game. Other cases is an editor bias view on a certain point of the article, like accusations of some random Eastern European nation of Racism. Many times when a spin-off article exists is for simply unencylopedic information in which few reliable sources exists like Houses on Desperate Housewifes, or endless lists like Cars in Popular Culture, or a nanostub which should just be merged back. Spin-off articles are only good if it's encyclopedic and can be written a full article with proper sources. Secret ^account 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
61. Oppose, notable sources will determine reliability, not the parent topic. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
62. Oppose All articles must establish their own independent notability. If there are not enough reliable sources to use to expand an article and make it stand on its own, then there shouldn't be an article on that. If the sources exist to expand the article, they exist. That's that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
63. Oppose All topics should have reliable sources to establish notability. Spin outs could still be non-notable even with a notable parent article. --Banime (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
64. Oppose If the topic requires a spin-out article, the details in the spin out article should be found in reliable sources as well; otherwise the spin out article's details should not have been in the original article in the first place. --Trödel 17:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
65. Oppose though I don't have the smarts to leave a decent original reason, because everything that I would say has already been said. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
66. Oppose So I can make an article with no citations and no real notability as long as it is a sub-article? No way. This would be a disaster. Wrad (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
67. Oppose. You've got to be kidding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
68. Oppose. Far, far too wide open. (It's sad that we have to be discussing this as if it was a general issue for Wikipedia, when in reality all the need for these kinds of regulations seems to stem from the irresponsible cruft collections in the pop culture sector.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
69. Oppose. If the parent article is too big but the components don't even have enough references to establish notability on their own, that's cause to trim the OR from the parent article, not spill out unverified material. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
70. Oppose articles should stand on their own merits. In mathematics quite a few article have spun out a "proof of" article, ideally these should be notable in some way with citations to support it. This serves as a good way to discriminate the genuinely famous proofs from the many million proofs appearing in papers and textbooks (hence meeting WP:V) which don't need to be in an encylopedia.--Salix (talk): 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
71. Oppose A flat rule like this would be problematic at best, as it would be quoted as a reason to create an article on anything remotely related to the "parent" article. Ignore all rules can cover some articles that are factual when 3rd party verification is difficult (ie: in print only) or for the exceptions that this rule would cover. While I have no problem with a somewhat lower standard for genuine pop-out articles that ARE well sourced, they still must be sourced, or it is just a page of text that hasn't been verified. In short, every article should be sourced and verifiable, even if the sourcing standards are different for articles and pop-outs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
72. Oppose. Seems wrong-headed to me. In fact, while I do not equate notability with having enough verifiable stuff, I would say the concept of notability is at its most useful when it shuts off a too zoomed-in approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
73. Oppose. Too broad, too generic. Can't assume that every spin-off is notable, without the new article having independent assertion of notability itself. -- Alexf⁴² 21:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
74. Oppose. If there is enough material for inclusion in a spin-off article, then I don't see why notability should be compromised. If there isn't enough material, there shouldn't be a spin-off. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 21:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
75. Oppose in deference to A.1.2, this would by default confer notability from the Wikipedia itself, making notability rationale in effect a circular argument. István (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
76. Oppose There are only articles nothing to be gained by trying to clasify some as "spin-out".23:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
77. Strong Oppose Re. notability, every article should stand on itself. Proposal A1 would make it to easy for an article to claim a notable article as parent. And if there would be such a claim, what kind of evidence (and how much of the evidence) would be appropriate to support the claim?? No, cross out A1. -- 69.183.102.174 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
78. oppose if theres sufficient Verifiable, Reliable source material to warrant a daughter article then there should be enough to establish notability. Gnangarra 00:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    the problem there is the requirement of "third party" information. Especially in cases of fictional works, third party sources that are considered reliable rarely deal with anything but the main topic, regardless of the relative importance of sub topics.--Marhawkman (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

79. Oppose An encyclopedia is read article by article, not sequentially, and not necessarily following a hierarchical path from parent article to subsidiary article. Each article must support its notability, by itself and completely, for as far as the scope of the article's subject is concerned. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
80. Oppose If the subarticle cannot be verified by reliable third-party sources, then it probably should not have been included in the original article anyway.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
81. Oppose Could be useful in some cases, but there is huge potential for a lot of useless, vaguely related material to be put onto Wikipedia. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
82. Oppose If an article about a notable subject is too large and needs to be split, but the prospective sub-article is not notable, then the main article contains too much irrelevant detail. The main article should be trimmed instead of moving the irrelevant stuff to another article. Wronkiew (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
83. Oppose These are dangerous waters to wade into. I am generally an inclusionist, but it is very, very important for articles to be verifiable if we are to be taken seriously. Saying a subject can inherit notability would allow many small, miniscule aspects of an article to become their own entities. As it stands, this would mean that every minor character that has ever appeared for five minutes in a television show would deserve their own article, inheriting its notability because the parent article (the TV show) was notable. Also, there should NEVER be a policy stating an article does not need third party publications, as this diminishes Wikipedia to a nothing. We are not merely a collection of human knowledge, but a collection of verifiable human knowledge. The point of the notability requirements is to ensure the quality of Wikipedia. Scapler (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
84. Oppose: If a section of an article is so large as to require becoming a sub-article, that section better be supported by enough reliable sources to stand up on its own. If it isn't, something is majorly wrong with the parent article. Most sub-articles are likely to be at least several paragraphs long and should therefore have a dozen or more sources, certainly more than the handful required to meet the GNG. Oren0 (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
85. Oppose Effectively throws the concept of notability out the window. With enough wikilawyering, one could argue that any article is the sub-article of another. Jay32183 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
86. Oppose This takes us too far from the requirement that all content must be sourced to a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
87. Oppose. Notability is not inherited. In many cases topics may warrant a section in an article given the presence of a source or two, but there may simply not be enough in terms of independent reliable sources to be able to flesh out an entire article for it. Hence, while the sub-topic may warrant discussion in the main article, it's not always notable enough for its own. ITAQALLAH 14:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
88. Oppose. Notability is associated with a topic. Exempting certain types of articles, especially poorly defined types of articles such as "spin-outs", from notability requirements is simply wrong-headed. It makes no difference to a topic's notability whether it is a subsection of a larger article, or a "spin-out". If it is not referred to in a reliable secondary source, then it isn't even verifiable, let alone notable, and should not be in the encyclopedia. The way to address this issue is to clarify what particular types of articles need to do to demonstrate the notability of the topic they cover. These requirements can be very minimal in some cases, but should at least include the provision of a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic in question. Geometry guy 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
89. Oppose Notable series will have lots of spin-outs, many of them will simply be not notable at all. A catch-all will catch a lot of crap. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
90. Strongly Oppose Each spin-out needs to be evaluated on its own. Just because an article is notable does not mean that everything in it (that might be split into a sub-article) is notable. Here are two concrete examples:

    • Elementary and Middle Schools. It has been a long-standing policy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools that School District articles are generally notable and should contain a list of schools in the district. However, elementary and middle schools are generally non-notable, so to have an individual article about them is generally not acceptable. When this happens, the school article is usually merged back into its district parent article, where it belongs.
    • People within a company, organization or school that do something. As a Wiki patroller, I frequently see instances of an article that describes a group within a company, organization or school doing something interesting, perhaps sponsoring a charity run. Within the otherwise-notable company article, that's reasonable. But to have its own article is almost always non-notable and usually quickly speedy deleted. Truthanado (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

91. Oppose I support A.1.2 because I think it is important to encourage spin-outs, but I oppose policy A.1 because it would justify creation of articles about utterly ephemeral trivia. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
92. Oppose - Spin-outs should be required to meet either the GNG or a relevant SNG. Without a spin-out notability requirement, spin-outs can be used to place information that isn't notable about a subject that is notable into its own article. It would be a better practice to simply trim the fat. —  X  S  G  18:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
93. Oppose – if third party sources establish the notability of the subject of the spin-off, they should be cited in the spin-off. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
94. Oppose - The concept of a split-out subarticle is itself flawed. If we have separate notability guidelines for this gray area, we are asking to be abused. Is "List of horse breeds" a subarticle of "Horse"? Probably. Is Brumby, a type of horse, a subarticle of something? An argument could be made either way. So, are all horse breeds notable? Sure. But not because of this flawed logic. In contrast, Da Vinci's Notebook is a notable musical group. But would List of Da Vinci's Notebook albums be notable? Possibly, but they're niche enough that an argument could be made. How about Bendy's Law, their first album? Or Genres in Da Vinci's Notebook songs? No. But as long as this rule stands, people will argue that subitems will inherit even limited notability. And we can't have that mess. JRP (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
95. Oppose - I think even sections within an article need to establish notability through third-party sources -- otherwise, it tends to be minutiae and trivia. So, whether a section is in the parent article or spun out for size reasons, it still needs to cite significant coverage by third-party sources to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
96. Oppose - Too broad and would provides carte blanche for a raft of unencyclopedic, unnotable material. Eusebeus (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
97. Oppose - Its basically saying that part of the subject of an article is notable because it is already mentioned in Wikipedia. It follows then that everything should be included in Wikipedia, which makes Wikipedia the sum of human knowledge (and every other bit of human made crap) not the summery of human knowledge an encyclopedia should be.
98. Oppose A spinoff becomes its own article and has to be treated as its own article. As such needs to establish its own notability. In practice, a spinoff should only really occur when there is so much notable information in an article that a new article makes sense. In other words, a spinoff should not be a remedy for removing non-notable content clogging a notable article. Notability won't often be an issue if the article is broken up for the right reasons. maxsch (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on A.1

1. Comment - I started a topic a few days ago in VP (tech) about creating sub-articles (separated by a slash) that may make "spin-off" articles more feasable. You might want to take a look at it. SharkD (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Comment As I feared when the RFC was being proposed, the poor and overly general phrasing of this proposal is attracting opposition that, in practice, is dealt with and thought through by those actually advocating thinking about spin-out articles. I repeat my request that this proposal be removed from the RFC so that an actual thoughtful proposal on the issue of spin-out articles does not get itself bludgeoned by the fact that it has supposedly "already been rejected." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think you are confusing poor phasing of the RFC with the fact that your proposal for spin-out articles was silent on the need for some type of inclusion criteria that would be used to regulate sub-articles. What this RFC is attempting to do is to fill in this ommission. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Comment As mentioned above I think the proposal is poorly phrased, it is widely accepted by the community that all information contained in articles has to be reliably sourced. The main issues I have generally come across with "spin-off" articles is whether that sourcing deals directly with the spin-off itself or mentions it in the context of the parent topic. When - and only when - there is enough reliably sourced information available on a subsection of a topic, I think how much space to dedicate to it and whether it should be spun of for reasons of size or presentation are editorial decisions that don't have much to do with notability guidelines. Guest9999 (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Comment I think the issue here is, notability is our primary mechanism for answering the question, "How much is too much?" WP:WAF is good but people ignore it as "just an MoS/content guideline" in AfD and merge discussions, even when the amount of appreciable content (i.e. not mere plot summary) approaches zero. Nifboy (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps we should encourage administrators to ignore arguments that rely on the disregarding of important and well thought out pages as "just a content guideline" instead of making substantive arguments about the content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Comment - Something workable may be possible, but we haven't figured out what yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Comment - There is a difference between a "spin-off" as a measure of organizing the main text, where the separated material is still a legitimate integral part of the parent article, and a "spin-off" that becomes an independent subject. Both yes and no options may be appropriate. NVO (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Comment: I would like to see more in-depth discussion on situations where spin-off articles are in the form "Characters/Items/Vehicles/Locations/etc. in/of Game/TV Show/Movie/Story/Series" (for example, List of items in the Metroid series). These kinds of articles tend to attract a lot of cruft, trivia and non-notable information, spark vigorous debates, and often lead to someone getting warned or even blocked for escalating the argument too far. However, under this proposal, this type of article would easily qualify as a spin-off of the highly notable Metroid (series) article. So, if this proposal addresses this issue satisfactorily, I'd be willing to support it, but I'm worried that it would cause more problems than it would solve, and it would lead us around in a big circle that we've already been through. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral: On the one hand, I don't think Toothbrushes of Sarah Palin is notable, even if this is an extension of a mention in the main article. At the same time, a reasonable spin-off article should be able to rely on the collected sources of the parent article as evidence of notability. Walkerma (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral: I agree with some of the points above about the need to have a strong line to stop "Political standpoints of some Third Party Deputy Leader" from being regarded as instantly notable. However if a spin-off or "forked" page at least shows SOME of the citations which enabled it to be forked off in the first place, then I would support a shift in emphasis. However, saying that, I don't want to get into the same long, long, long AfD debates about whether "The Cheshire Cat in popular culture" deserves to stay, as happened a few months ago. doktorb _words^deeds 05:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral: A spin-off article should not need to establish its notability with repetition of the parent article's notable features/facets, but it still needs to use reliable sources for any statements of fact. I should not be able to create a spin-off and source its claims to my own blog, for instance. --GoodDamon 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral. Spin-outs that cause too much debate can be merged into the main article. I'm also currently considering some of the articles related to The Weather Network meteorologists for deletion, but with the general notability guideline in upheval I'll wait until the temporary fail period subsides. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Neutral: I agree to a certain extent, but only insofar as the topic allows. For example if you had a Wiki page on a well known film and then you had a spin off article on that films budget I think it needs valid information to go along with the numbers and amounts given. But if the spin off article was only a list, for example, of crew and talent th only real validation you should need is whatever is in the main article.(or a list of the films credits) The problem is unless you break it down per topic we will run into the issue we already have, and a main reason for these discussions.Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Neutral: Within reason. Id est, reasonable spinoff articles should be able to rely on content from the main article to a reasonable extent.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal A.1.2 Spin-out articles are treated as sections of a larger work

Proposal: Sub-articles of a notable parent topic are permissible when the same content could realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article, if length and structure were not an issue (i.e. the content is relevant to the notable topic, verifiable, and encyclopedic - not original research, speculative, instructional, or indiscriminate).


Rationale: Long standing guidelines like WP:SS, and principles like Wiki is not paper, encourage comprehensive encyclopedic treatment of articles. When acceptable content becomes unmanageable in one article, deleting that encyclopedic information should not be Wikipedia's reaction. Rather, the content should be split apart across multiple articles. Sometimes this can create sub-articles that are on topics not inherently notable (receiving significant coverage in a third party source). This proposal allows the good information to remain on Wikipedia while discouraging an "inherited" mentality. A neighbor's dog is not suddenly notable, nor deserves an article, because both Dog, Poodle, and Earth are notable. Content on the neighbor's dog would never pass the litmus test of being in those articles in the first place.

Support A.1.2

1. While I wish that, were viewpoints being added to the RFC in part due to my complaints about the lack of correspondence between them and views actually proposed, someone might run wording by the people proposing them, I, generally speaking, support this approach, provided it is coupled with the development of a system to adequately manage sub-articles from both a technical and editorial standpoint. I should be open, I'm working on developing a proposal along these lines at User:Phil Sandifer/Branching. One aspect, to address Nifboy and Protonk's concerns, would be that sub-articles shouldn't be AfDed - consensus to merge should be found on the talk pages of the articles. I'm still working to address Kww's concerns, but currently lean towards all or some proposals to branch articles going through a "Branching proposals" page to get community support before the branching begins. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Weak Support - while I wholeheartedly support a holistic approach, I share Protonk's concerns about how it would play out at AfD. Nifboy (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Somewhere in this direction is the answer. Not sure how to implement it, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support While not perfect, somewhere along this line lies the logical path. --Speedevil (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Sometimes a sub-article exists for technical reasons. This is not a free pass for anything and everything, so guidance is needed.. It's just really tricky to nail down. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
6. support While there may be limits to this, as long as there are no problems with original research this is more or less what we should do. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support per my argument above; we should not be disincentivizing people to create reasonable-length articles. --R27182818 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support parallels my thoughts on aritcle length etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Seems a reasonable approach, albeit no different to current policy. Greg Locock (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support the split off article should be considered as part of the parent article and treated as if it were as subsection of that article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support I think spinouts should be considered notable as long as their main article is notable (of course), as long as they have an obvious main/spinout relation to the parent article (for example if the spinout is linked via a {{main|*****}}-tag from a section in the parent article), and as long as they have enough reliable sources to conform completely with WP:V.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support for the same reasons I gave for A.1. Spin-off articles are created because Wiki standards frown upon super-long articles, so topics are routinely split off so that they may be covered in more detail. 23skidoo (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Someone once described Wikipedia as an onion. You can keep peeling away to find more detailed information. I like that image -- wish I could remember who came up with it! Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - No change required We do this already at United States and most country articles with no apparent issues. The status quo is fine, though - No new policies needed. The current notability guidelines and WP:NOT already help prevent the downside of this, where the topics that get split are titled and focused in a manner that leads to "stuff made up one day" accusations. MrZaius^talk 05:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Support In my mind, the only test for inclusion to Wikipedia should be "Can a Reliable Source be found to back up the article." I am therefore in favor of lowering notability requirements in any way possible. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, but only with the establishment of defined limits. Specifically, I support that these articles be allowed under the purview of a purely descriptive guideline (i.e. not wholly reliant on notability) in which we analyze what classes of "spin-out" page do and do not have consensus by looking at AfD precedent. It's not the ideal solution, but as shown by other guidelines such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) it can be made to work when the writing of a normal, principle-based guideline fails. --erachima talk 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, I don't think we should limit the amount of text that can be written about a topic. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - this proposal offers the right level of control over the content of spin-off articles. Let's face it, you shouldn't be able to create a spin-off article with no reliable sources at all - a paragraph in a main article shouldn't be allowed to stand on such a basis. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Per WP:SS and WP:NOTPAPER. Wikipedia articles are in practice constrained to less than 20 printed pages or so, but yet much more than that can be written about many topics. If a topic has had 800-page books published about it, we can aim for more than 20 pages! Yet any random 20-page slice of a book might not look "notable" (i.e., publishable) when taken out of context of the larger work. The same goes for our subarticles and lists. --Itub (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support The perfect solution - separates the issue of notability from format choice. SP-KP (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support This is by far the most sensible approach. It ensures that the information WP contains is encyclopaedic without limiting the amount of information we publish. Waggers (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. This allows lists like "Notable people who live in such and such place" which can get very long for populous places. Binksternet (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. This allows for natural expansion without restricting coverage or distorting an article due to over large subsections. A re-word of caveat such that articles falling under this criteria should have to pass scrutiny under NPOV closely so as to avoid POV forks, and that significant good sourcing is present so support the content. --Nate1481 10:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Seems a most sensible approach and in my experience the most in line with general historical practices on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support for the same reason as A.1. Spin out articles should only exist when the main topic has so much content that it spills into a second article because of length. So the main article should be notable enough to have plenty of reliable sources, which means that there should be enough sources to adequately source the spinout. I can't imagine a scenario where there theoretically isn't enough reliable sources for the spinout. If the content is off-topic it should be removed and spinout reconsidered. Royalbroil 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Support This already goes on, opposing this proposal means supporting overly long articles or supporting the deletion of information.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Support As stated above by the many editors.. I won't restate. Morphh ^(talk) 13:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Strong support - Wikipedia is not paper, but that's not the only reason. Some topics can only receive sufficient coverage on Wikipedia if they are split into many articles. There's no reason to trim a broad topic just to satisfy WP:SS if the trimmed version offers clearly insufficient coverage. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, and not an online version of Britannica. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong Support what Hockey^ said. Wikipedia's main limitation is in presentation of information, not the actual volume of information.--Marhawkman (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Strong suppory Coming a little late to the party I think, and most of the good protestations have already been taken. As a means to keep large topics from becoming uselessly obese articles, this is only sensible. Ford MF (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Strong support. This is very well-put. It is an embarrassment to the project that there is no WP:COMPREHENSIVE; this is one step towards fulfilling that unfortunately neglected goal. This proposal serves the needs of Wikipedia's non-regular-editor users far better than current practice, because it allows for manageable expansion of content such that any detailed or specialized topic may be covered robustly. Chubbles (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Support as intrinsically expected under current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Support this is the way that makes best sense and is/will be most obvious and transparent to the average editor. Mfield (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Support On balance ok. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - Not a fan of the WP:SIZE policy. Encyclopedic content should be retained in some form and this suggestion works for me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Support If reliable sources exist, then sub topics should exist even if the topic itself would not support an independent article. --Trödel 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
37. Support The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Support with most of my comments from A.1.1 still being valid. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support, I like the idea of being able to have sub-articles for main articles that are too long; however, I don't like the "inherited" aspect of option 1. —the_ed17— 18:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support As long as we are saying that "A subarticle's requirement for notability still exists, but is held to a lower standard as long as the primary article is verifiable and sourced" then I would agree that a somewhat lower standard is fine. Having NO sources would not be. If properly done, would be a benefit to the encyclopedia, making many articles more readable, while allowing you to drill down on specific facts. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Making a marked designation between a page and an article, such that an article can span multiple pages allows WP:NNC to be supported without concern of WP:SIZE. -Verdatum (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Support so long as the main article is referenced below the title - this allows a spot for overeffusive detail that would otherwise clutter the main article, but may, in some instances, be valuable to some users. One must distinguish between the two scopes of 1) verifiable facts and 2) notability of subject. Subarticles do valuable service to main articles and should exist with 1) even though 2) may be lacking. István (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong support I have encountered many such cases. Nergaal (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. This is how I have understood spinout articles all along.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Support; a good formulation of the concept that notability shouldn't prevent us from organizing our content in the most effective way possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Length in particular is a big problem for me, because my computer takes too long to load and edit very long articles. Wiki is not paper. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Though I see the potential for abuse. Specific policies should be referenced to define what is encyclopedic so that sub-articles are not held to a lower standard than the main article. Wronkiew (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Much better suggestion. Pretty much the same argument as Pharmboy. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
49. Support - this is how it should always be. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Support This seems like a reasonable compromise. As Pharmboy observed, this means spin-out articles still have some standard of notability, but the standard is more flexible. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
51. Support – I've had issues defending places and ONEVENT criteria. By citing this clause, it would help contain needless merge issues when notability of a person despite ONEVENT claims (eg Manu Sharma) is clearly established. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
52. Support It is critically important that Wikipedia policies allow the creation of spin-offs in order to prevent articles from becoming unduly large. It is also inevitable that some spin-offs will be lack stand-alone notability, but are important elements of the whole parent article. In order to foster the orderly splitting of large articles, it must be possible for some split-offs to exist that would not be individually notable. (For example, some of the fictional characters in Doonesbury probably are not notable by themselves, but others are. The quantity of content that ought to be included in articles about the characters is too large for a single article covering all Doonesbury characters. In order to allow/foster the maintenance of articles about particularly important characters, it becomes necessary to have articles about each of the individual characters.) However, the splitting of an article should not be allowed to justify long articles about non-notable topics. Accordingly, it is reasonable to judge the notability and scope of split-off articles on the basis of the question "Would this content be appropriate in a subsection of the parent article, if there were no practical constraints on article length?"--Orlady (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. Spin-offs are sometimes necessary to maintain a comprehensive treatment of a matter without the page length skyrocketing. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
54. Strong support from the standpoint that anything that helps retain subjects that are only referenced via New/Alternative Media sources can only help improve the depth of the Wiki. BcRIPster (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
55. Support per Orlady's well-reasoned argument.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.1.2

1. Oppose: Still appears intended to permit entire articles to exist that are sourced only by primary sources, so long as there are third-party sources for the parent. Every article, even those designated a sub-article, has to stand on its own feet in terms of notability, and rely on independent, third-party sources. I'm willing to tolerate some limited lists, but this opens the door for becoming a TV Guide on steroids combined with a video game and anime trivia guide.Kww (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   Would your opposition stand if a system for managing sub-pages (I prefer the term to sub-articles, since the whole point is that the sub-article is not an article) were developed such that they could be efficiently managed from both a technical and editorial standpoint? If so, what would you consider to be essential aspects of that system? (And I am not looking for the answer "each sub-article should prove notability," which is just denying the basic premise of reconceptualizing what we consider an article to be. I'm looking for "What do you consider necessary to prevent an article from becoming a trivia guide? Put another way, what prevents any given article on any given topic from becoming a trivia guide internally without creating spin-off articles? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   The reliance on secondary sources is the primary tool for prevent this kind of unwelcome expansion. If third-party sources have considered an element to be notable, then it usually isn't a problem to include, so long as those third-party sources aren't trivia guides themselves. That's one of the reasons why I favor interpreting "relies on third-party sources" as meaning that I should be able to find most of the information in an article in third-party sources, with primary sources used only to provide such information as necessary to make it the information derived from third-party sources comprehensible. We went down this path with Gunsmoke before: if we wound up in the end with 2 pages of critique of Gunsmoke as a series and 500 sub-articles, one per episode, with a plot summary and cast list and a picture, that resulting 502 page article doesn't rely on third-party sources: it overwhelms the third-party material with first-party. I actually wouldn't oppose your sub-article system so strongly if I didn't know that that 502-page article was your goal.

   I also consider it important to not view sources designed to be exhaustive as conveying notability. That's why I oppose using atlases, censuses, and Complete Guide to Ballpeen Hammer 70000 type books as demonstrating notability. Once the work has being exhaustive as its guide, it becomes useless for judging the relative importance of things.

   In short, if an article is structured around presenting information found in multiple, independent sources, while preserving the relative prominence of that information as found in those sources, trivia problems become, well, trivial. If an article is structured around multiple editors' view of the original source material with no overarching guidance as to importance, trivia problems become insurmountable.Kww (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   That's not what I'm asking, though - I'm asking what tools and methods you would see as necessary to simultaneously satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT's demand that we offer a concise plot summary as part of our larger coverage (remembering that concise means brief but comprehensive) while also maintaining appropriate article balance. Put another way, our coverage of fictional works demands concise plot summaries - what tools do you see as necessary to keep those plot summaries in balance with the rest of the coverage? Pretend that we never split articles - that there were no size limits, and a 5 MB article on a work of fiction was considered perfectly acceptable in theory. How would you want to control the balance of that article? What would you see as necessary to do it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I would enforce the concept that the total size of plot summaries must be well under half of the aggregate size of the article, with some wiggle room around simple word count as a measure. If that means emphasising the "brief" aspect of concise while sacrificing the "complete" aspect of concise, that doesn't bother me. I honestly don't believe that 99% of individual episodes warrant mention in an encylopedia, much less a plot summary, and I think that looking for information in truly independent sources bears that out. Look how much of the articles we have on episodes today are derived from commentary tracks on DVDs, and those don't count as independent third-party sources at all. Aside from fan-sites, no independent source finds detailed plot summaries to be a necessity. Series tend to be notable, episodes not so much, and there is generally no reason to provide a plot summary of individual episodes to discuss a series.Kww (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I point out that articles can reach good article status with 42% of the article being plot/character info, suggesting that an enforced "well under half" rule is probably too high a bar for the basic question of inclusion (where we ought to set the bar well, well below "good article status"). Which is fine - you're perfectly entitled to the view that we have the bar too low for good articles, and that an article with 42% of the article plot/character info shouldn't have GA status, but the point remains - I think this view is far outside of current practice, and unsupported by current policy. I hope you'll consider working your view up into a full policy proposal so that it can gain consensus or not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   You conveniently neglect that the sub-article version of Gunsmoke would have been 500/502 plot, or roughly 99.6% plot. If you think a 50% guideline is stricter than current consensus, it's still a hell of a lot closer than 99.6%.Kww (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I did not neglect it - I have not looked at the Gunsmoke articles in any state, and have no opinions whatsoever on their quality now or previously. I agree that 99.6% is clearly an unacceptable number. But without seeing the articles and being more familiar with the available sources for improving them I could not comment on what the best course of action with an article in that state would be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Don't get too wrapped up in Gunsmoke, it's just an example. Since your plan is to have an article page for every episode of every series ever produced, with the episodes hiding from deletion under the notability of the parent series, the problem is inevitable. Once a series hits 20 episodes or so, the resulting aggregate article is going to be dominated by those plot summaries. Once a series has been running for five or six years, the series article is reduced to a coatrack for the plot summaries. If you want leeway to view aggregate articles as one article for notability purposes, you have to view the article that way under the other polices as well. Taking your example of Buffy, there are 144 episodes. What are you going to write about the series that is going to be substantially larger than 144 plot summaries? And why? Sure, I laughed when Oz was fascinated by the eyes of the cheerleading award in Season 3, because I remembered that Amy's mother's soul got trapped in the statue back in the first episode. Is documenting this kind of connection between episodes really the goal of an encyclopedia? Or is it the responsibility of a Buffy trivia guide?Kww (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   That's not my plan, actually. My plan is to have concise coverage of the plot of any fictional work that we consider notable, and to solve the problem of splitting it into the 60k chunks we call "articles" once we see what that coverage consists of. Episodes are a pretty good way of doing that for some shows, but not for all shows. Is Buffy likely to hit the 50% line? It'll be tough. Easier for Buffy than for some shows, because of the depth of academic response, but still tough. But, as I've shown looking at good and featured articles, I don't think your 50% line is well-supported by policy. And I think it runs against the general spirit of the project. For the vast majority of fiction, you're absolutely right - plot summary shouldn't be 50% of the article. But for extremely long serialized works you run into a problem where a work with equal cultural impact to a major motion picture has a wildly, wildly more complex plot. I'm uncomfortable with the attitude that a hard numeric rule should hold supremacy over a small subset of our 2.5 million articles has a big chunk of information necessary to encyclopedic understanding of the topic but best understood via primary sources. Situations like that seem to me to be why we have IAR - because a hard and fast rule - especially one interpreted as a simple pass/fail number - is unlikely to apply correctly to 2.5 million articles. I think that the peculiarity of extended serialization is a clear special case where we either have to accept that the general rule doesn't apply well here, or we have to decide that this category of topics gets less comprehensive coverage than topics of comparable notability. For me, the choice to discard the general rules is transparent. But I don't want to discard them in such a way as to allow an endless flood of fancruft. The point isn't that our content rules don't apply to fictional articles - it's that extended serial fiction poses one very specific problem in providing comprehensive coverage, where one aspect - plot - often takes much more space to explain than it does in other articles. Which is why I want a solution that starts from the question "what would comprehensive coverage of this topic consist of," then develops that coverage, then solves the problem of article splitting last, not first. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   (undent) Kww, I think a good way to view the argument is this: let's say we have an article (aggregate or otherwise) on a notable series, Fooey. Fooey became very popular while still in it's first season, but only had 8 episodes. The 3rd party commentary on this great fictional work easily outpaced the two-paragraphs or so given to each episode, satisfying a 51/49 majority. The summaries are well-written, don't contain speculation/excessive detail/OR. The second season of Fooey is just as popular, however because the show's been out now for a couple years, less press exists, however more is likely to come should this prove long-running (case in point, Buffy). This goes on for 5 years - oops we've run over the 51/49 majority line. What your argument seems to be is that in order to preserve this split, we should cut out information that before, was alright to have. I think Phil and others believe that since this info was good in the first place we shouldn't remove it - making the article patently less informative - in order to satisfy an arbitrary limit. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. Basically, this is moving in the right direction. However, I do not think that setting up a general principle like this one for spin-articles is a good idea. As a default position, I would say that a spin-out article needs to be able to stand on its own as if the parent article did not exist. In most cases this means that significant non-primary source coverage needs to be available. One should be able to perform a mental experiment of sorts: would it be possible to establish notability of the subject of a spin-article (sources, depth of coverage, etc, whatever is required by the applicable SNGs) if the parent article was not there? This does not necessarily mean that there always needs to be sufficient coverage of the spin-article subject that is independent from the parent subject (although in many cases I would want to see that). Things of this nature need to be worked out by specific SNGs that can properly take into account significant differences between various topics and, as necessary, set up specific exceptions and exemptions. I do think there may need to be exceptions to the "default position" stated above and that they need to be defined by relevant SNGs. I personally have little interest in fiction-related articles and am quite indifferent on the topic of episodes and characters that seems to be so controversial here. I do accept that it would be fine for a relevant SNG (presumably WP:FICT) to simply define some exceptions and declare that certain (well defined) elements of fiction are deemed notable once some specific WP:V requirements are met. I do not object to that sort of thing being done on a case-by-case basis in individual SNGs (in fact it is necessary to do this with some non-spin-out topics as well). But setting up a general principle like A.1.2 applicable to all topics everywhere is too inclusive for my taste and would, in my opinion, be a mistake. Nsk92 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   genereally speaking, can you give a non-fiction example of why this could be disatrous? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. If something can "realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article", then it can certainly be expected to be attributable to reliable, secondary sources, thus proving notability on its own. If we amass material from, say, primary sources, so that it does no longer fit into the (technical) limits of a Wikipedia article, the way to go should be shortening and summarization, not splitting. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Given that the target maximum size for an article is 60k, this puts a very, very sharp limit on the scope of plot summaries that effectively means we abandon plot summaries for long, serialized works. More broadly, I don't see the logic for making a technical limit (60k) become an editorial limit (depth of coverage). Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. Wolterding, other existing guidelines appear to disagree with you, specifically, WP:SS, but also the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'd also like to point out that Notability doesn't apply to content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose A retread of the "Every spin-out is notable". I doubt this "Does it belong in the parent article?" approach will work in practice. I have found in AfD that some people want every last detail in Wikipedia. Taking a "Wiki is not paper, so I can write as much as I want" approach to fiction also introduces copyright problems. There is a market for Star Trek episode summaries, Star Wars vehicle statistics, and other such fancruft. Without independent sources, it becomes harder to claim fair use. --Phirazo (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   This proposal does not seem to me to be supporting copyvio. And yes, the market exists for Star Trek, Star Wars, Buffy... but what about non-genre shows? I mean, clearly we need controls on a scheme like this, but I really don't see why conrtols would be so hard to develop here, but so easy for AfD, which is clearly having tremendous trouble handling fiction deletion as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what you mean by "genre", but if you mean sci-fi, there is enough of a market for Seinfeld trivia for the producers of Seinfeld to sue the publishers of a Seinfeld trivia book. Merely parroting the plot of any fictional work, regardless of the genre, is a copyright violation. There needs to be critical analysis. This can come from two places: secondary sources, or the editors' own opinions. The latter is original research. --Phirazo (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Castle Rock vs. Carol is a poor example - we are not for profit, have educational, not entertainment purpose, do contextualize the information with real-world information. We do include production, transmission, and casting information. We draw from DVD commentaries, reviews, interviews, and whatever else we can have. We are, simply put, not parroting the plot, but providing plot as contextual background for the discussion of a fictional work. So long as we work generally instead of providing excessive and trivial detail, and provide overall context I see no reason why we'd fall afoul of it. The basis for comparison is marginal at best. A concise summary (as mandated by WP:NOT#PLOT, and as opposed to a focus on trivial detail) contextualized as part of overall coverage of the cultural phenomenon (as opposed to focusing wholly on the fictional world as the SAT did) and in the realm of criticism and academic commentary (which we are, and which Castle Rock vs. Carol specifically noted as areas where the fair use would not weigh towards the copyright holder) is, by all appearances, fine. We ought not let copyright paranoia based on no serious legal insights by an actual lawyer get in the way of our basic mission of providing encyclopedic coverage of information. The fact of the matter is, a concise but thorough plot summary is part of that for works of fiction. We need to be careful about copyright concerns, but there's a mile between careful and paranoid. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Just to add a point here: about 4 months ago a statement from WP's lawyer, Mike Godwin, basically stated that there's no reason to bring up any fears of copyright due to too much plot, thus copyright concerns should not be a factor; that's not to say to concern how plot summaries, which are derivative works and thus are non-free material, interact with WP's "free content" mission, and why we should strive to keep plot information to what is necessary in conjunction with appropriate commentary and additional information to justify its use. --MASEM 04:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   thanks Masem... this approach is meant to reinforce the difference between relevant details, and indiscriminate information. When I see an article that lists every move Pikachu (sick of Star Wars refs) can learn, you might say it's bad because it's "cruft", or "too much plot". But I see indiscriminate information. People can still be shot down at AFD for excessive detail, which is a much better argument than using inflammatory words like "fancruft". As for your fair-use worries, that gets reduced to us simply having any encyclopedic coverage on a notable fictional topic being at-risk - because there's a market for it. And besides, we shouldn't do/not do things because of such-and-such law, that's why Wikipedia has lawyers. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that anything's at risk (legally) due to non-free concerns, just in the same vein as we consider non-free images as being appropriate per NFCC - and while contested non-free images stay around while they are discussed and no one is suing WP for having them - we should make sure non-free plot summaries are similarly considered (the NFCC could easily be matched one-for-one in how we consider plot summaries). Part of this is done by WP:NOT#PLOT; a bare plot summary with nothing else to support is an unjustified non-free media and should be deleted or, better yet, shortened and amended with real-world context as to justify the need to include non-free media and to better achieve the free content portion of the mission. But, definitely, until we get a warning from Mike Godwin or the Foundation, we are free to develop the guidelines without concern of any possible legal recourse at this time. We just need to be fully aware of WP's mission and make sure we stay true to it. --MASEM 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm aware of your point :) I was trying to respond to 2 parties at once. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose I agree with Phirazo that this proposal is a virtual rehash of "Every spin-out is notable", which I fundamentally oppose on the grounds that notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources. Every article and spin-out must be able to stand on its own feet when it comes to GNG, otherwise we are giving sub-articles special treatment, despite the fact there is little or no difference between them and ordinary articles. There is a subtle difference with this proposal and A.1, namely that a spin-outs would be allowed if "the same content could realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article", but it seems to me that only so called "expert opinion" can make this judgement call, as there are currently no agreed rules or mechanism to identify when or where notability could be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in this way. It seems to me that if every article and sub-article cites reliable secondary sources about their subject matter, then every editor can make merger or deletion decisions without "expert" assistance when it comes to dealing with duplicate articles or content forks, examples of which are The Terminator, Terminator (character), Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (franchise). --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   I am struggling to figure out how, if expert opinion would be needed to figure out if content could be expected to appear in the parent article, we are capable of writing articles at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   You've mentioned this split very often, for all intents and purposes, the character concept and franchise pages are "Lists" without using the word exactly. The former listing the robot characters, the latter listing fictional works, if renaming them as lists would make them better, than go ahead. And same goes with other "content forks." That information can likely be merged or (like in this example) be taken care of with other non-GNG guidelines. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose - same again - effective notability guidelines are necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - this is still just 'all articles are exempt from WP:N' in disguise. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

   I actually find that assertion rather superficial. This proposal reinforces verifiable, relevant, encyclopedic information where the other one did not. This effectively prevents several types of garbage articles from being created. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose with a "but". As others have noted, this is going more into the right direction than proposal A.1.1., but it unfortunately leaves the definition of relevance and encyclopedicness to fanboy opinion again. E.g. I confirm User:Protonk's observations about the discrepancies of Doctor Who versus Warhammer 40k articles when AfDs and mergers come up for crappy spinouts. If a spinout article cannot prove its relevance and encyclopedicness outside a main article directly through significant third-party sources, or non-trivial and reliable real-world info in the case of fiction (I am talking at least strong C-class quality here), there simply is no reason to have a spinout article (I am excluding lists in this argument). If WP:NOT#PLOT was as well-respected as WP:GAMEGUIDE to determine unencyclopedicness at the core, I'd show more willingness to adopt a proposal along this line here. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

   the core diff between GAMEGUIDE and PLOT is that one is explicitly forbidden, while the other is explictly allowed. We are then left to our own devices to figure out what the "right amount" is. But then you don't feel that we can still keep articles under control with WP:V, WP:IINFO and other content guidelines/policies? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose. This blanket policy is too wide to be applicable in all cases. NVO (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   as in... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose: My reasons are virtually the same as opposing 1.1: this would open the floodgates to a lot of non-notable and verifiable sections. Treating sections as articles and articles as sections solves nothing, and perhaps makes the problem worse. Yes it's easier to delete a poorly written section than it is to delete a poorly written article. But then it's also easier to bring it back. I think this would create a lot more edit warring, as opposed to the finality that comes from an AFD for an entire article. Keeping all articles to a specific WP:SIZE has a way of enforcing WP:UNDUE and WP:NNC that we don't over-cover certain topics. If someone writes a section with lots of appropriate sources, of course it's notable, and of course it belongs in Wikipedia with its own large article. But if someone writes a gigantic section with zero appropriate sources, why should we offer it some vague umbrella of protection because it's related to some other topic? Once again, WP:AVOIDSPLIT combined with WP:SIZE is highly important to keep an appropriate quantity and quality of coverage for Wikipedia. I'd be open to making specific exceptions for specific kinds of articles, but this is a mess. It's a technical change that doesn't fix "notability is inherited", and arguably may even make it worse. Randomran (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose this proposal is a sugar-coated version of 1.1. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose because this blanket statement could lead to possible Weight problems, especially with BLPs. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose per my opposal to the first case. Themfromspace (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. The wording here is unclear but nonetheless, either it is asking for allowing sub-articles to not meet WP:V,WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, which is a no-go, or it is needless instruction creep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I was almost behind this one until I read the part of the rationale that says "Sometimes this can create sub-articles that are on topics not inherently notable (receiving significant coverage in a third party source)." Sorry, no. "Sub-articles" are articles too, and are subject to exactly the same proof-of-notability requirements as every other article. —Angr 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Angr. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose This is a thin edge of the wedge approach. IMO all articles need to meet the same criteria, regardless. Nick Thorne ^talk 08:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose This has the same problems as the previous suggestion. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Jepp, nicer wording, but really no different from 1.1.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Similar to 1.1, it encourages unsourced spin-offs to appear. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Per Gavin.collins. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose I actually agree with this in theory, but I feel that if made a policy or guideline it would open the door to tons of misinterpretation and wikilawyering. At best, this is a common-sense (but unneccessay) restatement of existing policy/practice. At worst, it's a disruptive wikilawyer's wet dream. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Much the same as 1.1 really. Sandifer's commentary simply makes me more convinced that this would result in yet more amateur[ish] exegesis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong Opppose - THis is virtually the same thing as the first proposal, which is also fundamentally flawed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Same reasons as for the first proposal: Part of the decision process to break out a section of a parent article into a stand alone article should be the notability of the topic. If the topic does not meet notability requirements but is too large for the parent article, that might be an indication that the section itself needs trimming. SilkTork *^YES! 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose, almost identical to previous proposal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose If there is enough information on a subject in sources outside of Wikipedia to allow a subsection of an article to become large enough to merit its own article, then notability is already established. If the sources don't exist, then the subsection is simply filled with speculation and personal analysis, and should not be that long in the first place. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose Seems the same as the first proposal. Per above. --Banime (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Banime, Angr, Kww. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose, although I don't agree it's identical to A.1. Concur with KWW and Jayron32, among others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose. This sounds reasonable, but it still leaves too many doors open for the pop cruft pushers. If we were only dealing with reasonable encyclopedists, it would be different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose per many of the above. Just because a topic is notable does not mean any section on its own would be notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose same rational as my comment for A1 above.--Salix (talk): 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose same reason as my comment for A1 above. Every article would have to be independently notable.-- Alexf⁴² 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose, still not a well-formed proposal. Basically this needs to become a version of "not indisciminate" that really gets to the point. It is not true that if one example is good, 20 examples would be justified; nor that if one quote from a historian is good, a quote farm article would be good. And so on. We would still need the ideas "this is for Wikibooks, this is for Wikiquote or Wikisource, this is for Wikia". In fact encyclopedias have always been selective, and we should also note that following academic sources in formulating topics is a strength of our current approach, rather than a weakness. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Strong Oppose. A spin-off article is an article. Having two sets of standards for the same thing (article) is a recipe for disaster. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose. I agree that the wording "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" sounds too strong, making apparently impossible that a sub-topic is inherently notable. But on reading the expanded definitions of words at WP:N, I understand that the spirit of that rule is not that strict, and it is reasonable to require that from any nontrivial article, spin-out or not. Maybe the wording should be made less drastic, but I don't think there should be any difference between main and spin-out articles (except in the case of trivial lists; see my support vote for A.4). -- A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose For the same reason as for my opposition to proposal A1. "when the same content could realistically be expected to appear in the parent topic's article" presents a hypothetical that would invite abuse. No, drop proposal A1.2. -- 69.183.102.174 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose too openly worded, notability isnt/shouldnt be inherited. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper. We dont need articles on every one of Britney's boy friends nor do we need to chase a pregenant actress down the street to get a photo for an article on her pregenancy. This is about Wikipedias credability and reducing the verifiability of information isnt going to do that. Gnangarra 01:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose I'm with Randomran. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Oppose It's really proposal A.1 in sheep's clothing. --John Nagle (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose This is an attempt to game the system using WP:SS as a loophole to avoid WP:N, rather than attempting to use the two in conjunction. Jay32183 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
43. Oppose If the section is large enough to be spun out into its own article, then it should already be well-sourced enough to meet notability requirements on its own. If it isn't, then it should be pruned down to a more manageable size, not spun out.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose - same reason as A.1. ITAQALLAH 14:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose. A3 is a better formulation. VG ☎ 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Nothing to oppose oppose. This statement is essentially vacuous, as notability concerns a topic not an article, and it makes no difference whether the material is covered in a section or an article as to whether the topic is notable or not. The idea that certain types of articles only need to demonstrate their notability as if they were sections in another article makes approximately zero sense, unless it is simply an excuse for not providing a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic. The latter, is, of course, in violation of WP:V. Furthermore, this proposal concerns the extremely ill-defined notion of a "spin-out" and the even more unhelpful term "subarticle". Is History of biology a spinout of biology, history of science, both, or neither? Can it defer its demonstration of notability to either of these articles - certainly not! Geometry guy 15:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Oppose - If an article is getting too large or there is a section of an article which is being considered for a spin-out, it should also be considered for deletion, "trimming the fat" as it were. If notability for that section can be asserted, a spin-out is appropriate. If not, the information should be better-summarized and specific, trivial details should be removed. —  X  S  G  18:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose – nothing wrong with splitting an article, each spin-off should include third party sources establishing the notability of the subject. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
49. Oppose. In practice this would be no different than option A.1. What is the measure of indiscriminateness? ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Oppose. Worse than the first option. Why would we want a whole class of "sub-articles" that are somehow less important and thus less in need of notablity that "real" articles? Every article needs to be notable on its own. maxsch (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral A.1.2

1. Moved from Oppose This is moving in the right direction, but it leaves us with WAY too much fighting in the trenches. the problem we face with sub-article notability is almost exclusively in the fiction world and it is dealt with in the breech, over and over again, at AfD. Right now we have an easy to interpret general guideline which is obviously a square peg for the round hole of fiction articles. I don't want to replace it with an inchoate instruction which leaves us to argue over "reasonable" and WP:SIZE. We will end up doing the same thing then as we do now. Some fictional topics (Star Wars/Star Trek/Dr. Who) will be vigorously defended and kept regardless of the guidelines. Some fictional topics (Warhammer 40K, video games, anime stuff) will be defended by a small clique of individuals and deleted steadily in accordance with guidelines. Honestly, nominate a Dr. Who article and look at the shitstorm that you reap. Then nominate a 40K article of the same disposition (unsourced for 2 years) and wait for the crickets. Granted, sourcing is possible for most Dr. Who stuff, but you get the point. We need a guideline that offloads that discussion from AfD. AfD needs to be a narrow discussion on the particular merits of an article with regard to the guidelines and policies for inclusion accepted by the community. It should not be a proxy debate for Notability each time. I oppose any policy to change the notability requirements in such a way that the burden of debate is shifted further on to the editors and admins at AfD. Protonk (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   To be fair, I agree with you. As I said in my support, unless we come up with a viable system to handle the expansion of articles from a technical and editorial standpoint, this proposal would be a disaster. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I guess I should rightly move this to neutral, as my opposition is based more on an application sense than a philosophical sense. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   What would you think of having sub-articles not be AfDable, but rather demand consensus to merge on the talk page of the article? (Which is something we need to work out - what to do with talk pages of sub-articles) And, to balance that, having a Proposals for Branching page where many (if not all) proposals to branch articles would be discussed before being implemented, possibly coupled with a whitelist of branches that are generally acceptable? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Take a quick look at this Deletion policy proposal. I think that would dovetail nicely with a branching discussion. The proposal went stale after a while but I think the basic idea was sound. I'll take a look at the branching idea in a bit. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I like that. I think that better instilling an ethic of "deletion is an extreme measure" and "making content easy to access for future use is a good thing" is an important goal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I've been thinking about it in the opposite direction, an Articles for Merge/Redirect page to get fictional subjects out of the notoriously hostile environment that is AfD, by taking the option for D out (because hiding the history is really a formality and some 90% of these articles have really obvious redirect target). Nifboy (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well that policy (in the end that it eventually resolved to) sort of did that, without creating a new board. Subarticle goes to AfD. The AfD goes the 5 days with the option of merging or moving to a merger discussion. The AfD is closed with a timed, community enforced merger discussion. IF that discussion fails to reach consensus, the article gets deleted. If it does, it is merged. Kinda takes time but most fiction articles that go to AfD aren't really the kinds of articles where an extra 10 days of discussion damages WP. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   An interesting and compelling rebuttal. And I would love it if half of my AfD discussions weren't tiny notability battles, but I don't think a one-size-fits-all rule system is possible. Even a little. As with obscenity, there is always going to be a degree to which notability is in the eye of the beholder. The GNG are, I think, mostly right on, but they break down in the face of a very large class of articles. For fictional subjects they often fail to adequately separate the wheat from the chaff, plain and simple. The problem is that works of art (which is what we are talking about here) are going to be elusive in nature and subject to wide interpretation. And when dealing with them, codified rule systems aren't going to give you great internal consistency (see also MPAA ratings). It's like trying to formulate a rule to guarantee common sense. Ford MF (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral I like where this is going. There needs to be something to better define a sub-article. But this is far to open interpretation and will lead to more even problems unless something more specific is came up with. Charles Edward 12:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I would support it if the proposal said that such spin-outs were themselves notable aspects of the parent topic. I'm not sure whether that's implied by or deliberately excluded by the statement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)