Wikipedia talk:Notability

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 17 September 2008 (→‎Rename proposal: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
Archive
Archives


Wikipedia:Relevance

In a better nutshell

For the busy people, the article has this quick encapsulation of the notability article:

There are several important things that we left out of this nutshell, which the reader can get by reading the rest of the article. Think about these questions and ask yourself if they are important to an editor being pointed to this page for the first time.

  • Why is notability important? What impact does notability have on Wikipedia articles?
  • What happens if an idea is not notable? Do only notable ideas deserve articles?

If course, anyone who reads the article in its length can answer these questions. However, these are fundamental issues that govern whether an article survives deletion or if an inexperienced editor creates a legitimate Wikipedia article. Leaving these issues out of the nutshell statement is avoidable. Consider this version:

Granted, the original version specifies the agreed definition of notability, but this article does not simply define. Notability matters, and the term's use extends far beyond bare meaning. My motivation here is to make the notability statement connect with how notability affects the business of Wikipedia, because the existing version does not. —Kanodin 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects don't "deserve" articles. The lack of information in reliable secondary sources is not so much a question of merit as a question of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If there isn't enough reasonable coverage out there, we have no way of writing a decent article on the topic. The emotional judgment of "deserves" might be the ultimate arbiter when it comes to ignoring all rules, but the basic principle of notability is not "should we" but "can we?" SDY (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this earlier discussion - an article needs to be about a notable topic, but a notable topic does not need an article as sometimes it is better to cover such in the context of a larger topic. So the version you propose is not correct.
That said, maybe the wording needs to be flipped around:
that is, re-emphasizing that article topics should be notable (and that non-notable topics should not have articles), while reiterating the definition of notability. --MASEM 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much prefer Masem's version, which I think puts it well while also sounding friendly and positive. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Also, because it correctly allows for what I have said just below about the role of the "GNG". Now what we need is a definition of "presumed" that doesn't presume to much. :). DGG (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short and to the point, explains that notability is desired and why, but still leaves enough room to breathe. – sgeureka t•c 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^ What Sgeureka said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Masem's objection to "deserves", and I have no problem with avoiding the word. In fact, I think the substance of what I wanted to add is Masem's new sentence. I am going to leave the original nutshell sentence (since the flipped version is logically identical and switching would require rehashing the rest of the article), and add Article topics should be notable. Surprisingly, that's all that I think is missing. If anyone disagrees, please revert/adjust the corresponding edit and explain. —Kanodin 06:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the change is unnecessary. The inclusion of the word "should" adds an element of ambiguity, and I request that the first sentence be removed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a guideline (thus not absolute), and the second sentence of the lead uses the same word, there is nothing wrong with using "should". (even policies use "should", with the understanding there are always exceptions). --MASEM 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Should" is OK for describing preferred behaviour. It is not useful for describing dubious facts (where a real fact would be worded "Article topics are notable"). When saying "Article topics should be notable", what are you saying? That editors should strive to make article topics notable? That is not appropriate, because a topic is either notable or not, and an editor cannot make a non-notable topic notable. The fact that notability is a requirement for articles derives from WP:DEL#REASON (or perhaps the behaviour that WP:DEL describes). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem is a master of obfuscation. The guideline is not absolute, but it still needs to be clear. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "Topics of articles on Wikipedia are notable" is de facto wrong. A quick look through CAT:NN will convince you of that. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec, to Smokey Joe and Gavin) The next step up from "should" is "must", and it's certainly not (yet) the case that notability is a requirement. I can't see any other word choice that is appropriate there.
  • The other aspect to consider is that notability is not 100% objective. Even by the GNG, what constitutes "significant coverage" is not a question that can be answered easily; there's obvious cases on where it does happen, obvious cases where it doesn't, but a large number of articles that hit AFD for being "non-notable" fall in a subjective grey area. This is not like WP:V where sourcing is can be very apparently, and while exactly what are reliable sources up in the area, there's much more objective guidance on that. Because we cannot be objective when it comes to notability, we cannot say that article topics "must" be notable since there's no absolute measure of that. --MASEM 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone has ever claimed that WP:N to be 100% objective, as whether a source is reliable or secondary will always require an element of judgement. However, I have not seen any alternative proposals for inclusion criteria that are more objective; as far as I can see, alternative proposals (such as FEAPOALT) seem to be based on so called "consensus", which is little more than so called "expert opinion". I don't see any reason for the proposed change, unless you have come up with a clear and well defined proposal reason why WP:N should be watered down by changing the wording. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Reread the OP's question and why this change was suggested. The nutshell covers the fact of what the GNG says, but does not explain why an editor should be aware of that. Since the statement "article topics should be notable" is a replication of text in the first paragraph of the body of the guideline, this statement of "why" should be added to the nutshell; it does not change any meaning of the guideline at all but enhances the first-time reader's understanding of the importance of the guideline. --MASEM 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not the purpose of this guideline to explain why policies and guidelines exist, and more importantly we should not attempt to provide an explaination in a nutshell; this falls outside the scope of WP:N. In any case, the reasons provided by Kanodin as to why WP:N exists are an expression of his opinion only, not a statement of fact. My own view is that WP:N exists as an inclusion criteria because, where there are sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, then that is best criteria by which it can be judged whether or not to have an article on a particular topic. If you can think of other inclusion criteria that should be used, then state them, don't try and water down WP:N as if it were only one of many (better) alternatives.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria is a cause of action in WP:N, as specified in the first paragraph of this project page: "The topic of an article should be notable..." I can find this inclusion criteria nowhere in the content principles, and those principles govern the content of articles, not whether they exist (WP:ATP is an exception, but has nothing to do with notability). However, an inverted version of this, an exclusion criteria, exists in WP:DP. If we are to say that WP:N is no cause for action, then we have no business declaring that WP:N requires all article topics to be notable. If the WP:N inclusion criteria derives from some other policy, then we should recognize that in the article. As WP:N looks now, the inclusion criteria is more cardinal than the meaning of notability itself. The inclusion criteria appears to be part of the essence of WP:N, and is not the same thing as an explanation of why the policy exists. An explanation of why the policy exists would extend to WP:NOT and WP:V, but WP:N bridges this connection by noting that notability exists as a presumption.
So, one of two things should happen:
1) The inclusion criteria should exist in inverted form inside WP:DP and should be removed from WP:N; WP:N should note that WP:DP excludes non-notable topics, or
2) The inclusion criteria should be a part of WP:N and its nutshell statement.
I side with (2), partially because Wikipedia better operates with an inclusion criteria rather than an exclusion criteria. Editors should justify to themselves that an article topic is notable before creating an article, and not wait for a complaint to measure whether they should have created the article in the first place. Relying on an exclusion principle advocates the latter behavior and distracts everyone with inane AfDs. —Kanodin 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:SILENCE, I am adding ' Article topics should be notable. ' to the beginning of the nutshell statement. This edit bumps against archiving so people can (re)join the discussion. —Kanodin 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just your opinion, and your edit should be reverted. Frankly, I see no reason to say that articles should be notable; I don't thinking this conveys any meaning at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kanodin, you do make some sense, but I don't think it merits bloating the nutshell. The nutshell should be the absolute bare minimum. Perhaps you could modify the body of WP:N, or even better, help clarify the deletion criteria at WP:DP / WP:DEL#REASON. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gavin: I chose Article topics should be notable because it already appears as policy in the first paragraph of the article. Should is a standard term that operates policy decisions. We can talk about using a stronger modal verb than should, but I think that is not the real issue. Without this addition about the mandate of article topics, the nutshell statement says nothing about Wikipedia articles. Do we want to assume that everyone knows that WP:N controls whether article topics exist? The statement in question says more about Wikipedia's standards than defining notability. Editors probably have some plain English notion of what notability means; but newcomers do not know that Wikipedia's articles have to be notable. Unless someone tells the reader, the WP:N nutshell defines notability and applies it to nothing.
  • SmokeyJoe: Your comment exposes a tension between two policy pages. As we now gather, WP:DP has deletion criteria and WP:N has inclusion criteria. There is probably some overarching criteria for the existence of articles, but that set of conditions does not center on any one policy page. Those conditions are scattered across WP:N and WP:DP. Notability does not say everything about whether an article is legitimate. However, notability is still an essential condition of article existence--no article topic may exist without notability. Here is a major problem: since Wikipedia's article notability policy exists in WP:N and in inverted language in WP:DP, which page trumps the other? This is a potential wrangle, but I think that the inclusion criteria is cardinal, and WP:DP simply follows WP:N's suit. Article topics should be notable is better than its inverted form: Article topics should not be non-notable.
  • Randomran: As much as we may agree that the addition of the sentence is appropriate, pushing reverts against two editors who plainly disagree with us is not productive. Gavin.collins and SmokeyJoe took time to break W:SILENCE and contribute their opinions, and I respect their right to disagree. As long as they find the time and energy to contribute their ideas in opposition to me, I will commit to keeping my opposed idea off the policy page.
  • So far, this discussion has done two things for me. First, others have given me an opportunity to learn more about Wiki-policy and how certain policy pages fit together. Second, it has made me aware that policy pages overlap and collide in many ways. We require all Wikipedia articles to be notable does not have a clear "home" in any definite policy page. If it did, then I would know to which nutshell statement to add it. The other problem is we cannot expect editors interested in certain aspects of policy to have a whole array of pages on their watchlist. As an aside to the WP:N nutshell, try to tell me where the mandate of notable articles belongs in Wikipedia policy. I think answering that question will go a long way to resolving my issue. Someone tell me if I'm wrong, because I am starting to think that WP:Article Criteria needs its own page. In the meantime, I'm going to try this version for this page's nutshell statement:
  • The added words, a suitable article topic, derive from the first paragraph of WP:N. Now, if someone is motivated to complain about nutshell bloat, remember that this revision expands the nutshell statement by three words and keeps it down to one declarative sentence. Is that not a reasonable compromise?
—Kanodin 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do like that one [1]. Reducing the use of that confusing "notable" word is good. This page effectively defines wikipedia-notability, and internal references to "notable" are not helpful. Note that this is especially in reference to the intended audience: newcomers and others not familiar this this notability stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not leave it as it was? Unless you have a compelling reason for change (e.g. it makes no sense) leave it as is. I don't think any of these cosmetic changes are necessary, as this continous "goldfish editing" (which involves nibbling at the guideline, but forgetting what came before) is not productive, and a waste of time.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's much more productive to get this right on the talk page first, rather than making snappy replies in the edit summary. That said, I think your version with "a suitable article topic" is actually better than anything we've had so far. The problem with ditching "articles should be notable" is that you don't explain why we should care about notability, and what happens when an article is notable / not notable. The problem with keeping "articles should be notable" is it's kind of trite and uninformative. Saying "it is presumed to be a suitable article topic" is synonymous with "it is presumed to be notable", but much more informative for a novice reader. Randomran (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the use of the phrase "it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." is awful! For starters, it is too judgemental. We have been down this path before, describing the inclusion criteria for an article as being based on "importance", and now we are using an equally judgemental term "suitability". Also, it is a very old fashioned turn of phrase. Describing an article as worthy for inclusion on the basis of "suitablity" sounds like we are selecting a husband for a Jane Austen character. Has he article got "means" to impress its readers? Is the article written in a "cultured" style? Is the article's tone "pleasant" and without any pride and prejudice? Was it first drafted in tastefully coloured ink using a sharp quill? My goodness Mr. Randomran, I must now demand that the original version be restored or otherwise we will have to resort to pistols at dawn!--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think the phrase is really that awful. If it judgemental, that’s because it is the nature of WP:N to be judgemental, as a policy based deletion criterion. “Suitable” and “importance” are not similar words. “is presumed to be” is a bit of a funny turn of phrase, and is in a passive tense. I’d be happy with “is”. I do think it is important that an article has sources that impress. You go on to confuse matters with references to style, tone and taste. These things relate to the style guidelines and have no place in WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept your point that the term notability is itself judgemental, and that the way that the concept is applied in Wikipedia (say at AFD) is also judgemental. However, if you follow the archived discussion at WT:IMPORTANCE regarding the use of the word "importance" as a description for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, you will see that "importance" was abandoned because what is important to one person may be irrelevant to another. By contrast, notability was considered to be a term that was less judgemental in the sense that, regardless of whether a topic is notable or notorious, it qualifies for inculsion in Wikipedia, provided reliable secondary sources can be found for that topic. A similar problem arises with use of the term "suitable", which sounds as if it has more to do with describing a topic which passes WP:NOT, as an unsuitable topic would (in my imagination at least) fail WP:NOT. A notable topic, by definition, is one that is "worthy of notice"; this is a concept distinct from "importance" or "suitability", which is why I am still requesting that the original wording be restored.--Gavin Collins (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Suitable” for an “article topic” is what WP:N is about. Labelling a subject/topic not “suitable” appropriately conveys the message that there is nothing you can do to fix it. No amount of editing can make an unsuitable subject suitable. I feel that suitable has far less value connotations than importance, and reasons for not using “importance” don’t readily apply to “suitable”. The previous wording I think is worse because it implicitly redefines “notable” from its real-world meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But truthfully, our use of "notable" is a very limited subset of what "notable" means in the real-world. A first-time editor getting hit with a non-notable AFD needs to be aware of this fact once directed here. Now, I can see dropping the word from the nutshell as to not get hung up on its alternate meaning, but then there seems to be no relationship between the page title and the nutshell. --MASEM 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In answer to SmokeyJoe, if you don't define what "suitability" is, how can you say that WP:N is about "suitability"? In answer to [User:Masem|Masem]], notability may only be a subset of the real-world meaning of the word, but within the context of this guideline, its meaning is explained comprehensively, unlike suitability. Please restore the original version that has been in place for over a year [2]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that notability should be mentioned; I think the nutshell is less effective if you, as a first time editor, come to "WP:Notability" and not see it defined in the nutshell. We shouldn't be beating around the bush with the nutshell. This is why the other part that is being added, about notable topics and article suitability, is also necessary: without it, we say what notability is without why it should be considered. We don't have to get into specifics, just that "An article topic should be notable." --MASEM 16:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(un indent) I like the version posted by Kanodin at 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC) best of all the options shown. It keeps to the original intent and signifies the article is a critical part of the statement as topics do not need to be notable in of themselves if they are in article which is notable. Jeepday (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out that I did not come up with these additions to the nutshell out of thin air. In an effort to eliminate controversy, I chose phrases and words that already exist in WP:N. If we want to talk about whether a certain aspect of WP:N belongs in the nutshell, that would be a legitimate conversation. But, questioning the legitimacy of the proposed statements as if they were foreign to WP:N goes way beyond a nutshell issue. Consider these sentences:
  • The topic of an article should be notable.
  • Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article.
If anyone has a problem with these sentences (emphasis added), go to WP:N and read the entire opening section. All of these statements already exist as part of policy. By virtue of their stable presence in WP:N we all concede that these represent Wikipedia policy. If people want to question these proposals based on their acceptance as policy, they need to question their presence in WP:N and not simply their appearance in the nutshell. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposal

There have been several heated disputes over the notability guidelines. After huge arguments from inclusionists, deletionists, and all those in between... a few compromises have gained conditional support. We are now putting a few of those compromises to the larger community at a request for comment.

Please chime in at: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Randomran (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is going as badly as I had feared, and I am in particular appalled by your conduct, criticizing A1 for a lack of specificity when you are the one who tore out the specificity and nuance to collapse it into a few sentences. Although I will participate in it, I am doing so only inasmuch as it is needed to clearly voice that the proposal under discussion on the RFC has no relation to the actual serious attempt at a policy shift that I am going to work on separately. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, instead of accusing me of "appalling conduct". You don't own the proposal, and even after you withdrew it I kept it in a different form because there was circumstantial support for it from others. Nothing is stopping you from making your own proposal at a later time, this RFC is not a vote, and it is certainly not the final word. It is merely a discussion that will help us rule out some possibilities, and develop consensus on even a few issues. Of course I hoped this would resolve the issue once and for all, but I never expected it to. We'll see how it pans out and wait for the next step. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is proceeding quite predictably. Calling wide attention to a problem that a reasonably sized group of interested participants can't agree on is not likely way to get progress. A better method is to propose your preferred solution, defend it, and adjust it per valid criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more confusing wording.

In the "nutshell", and indeed pretty much the entire article, it says "Article topics should be notable". Shouldn't this read "Article subjects should be notable"? because it also says, at the bottom of the article, that content is not beholden to WP:N - "...particular topics and facts within an article..." do not need to meet WP:N. So I'm left wondering how can "article topics" be notable if the topics in articles are not notable? I understand that the distinction is kind of banal but we should make a more clear attempt at separating the "subject" of an article from the "topics" discussed in the article (those being my proposed "distinction words"). What say ye? padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right that distinguishing between the topic described by an article's title and sub-topics within an article is important. However, replacing topic with subject doesn't solve the problem. People may still think that an article may have multiple subjects within it, and then we're back to your original issue. Discriminating between the scope of an article and multiple sub-topics requires verbose wording that goes beyond the nutshell, and I cannot think of a simple way to make that clear for the nutshell. Part of the complexity is that notability affects an article's NPOV content; article content should be germane to that topic's notability (i.e., relevant). We don't write everything that is verifiable on every notable topic (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). —Kanodin 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then notability does affect article content and we should take the contrary insinuation out. This would also alleviate the problem by removing one side of the confusing elements. But I find it unacceptable to use the same word for two different situations and expect the reader to figure it out. How about the following:
padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a quick step back here, and make sure we are nutshelling correctly.
We have the following "major" points that are your one-minute take-aways from all of WP:N that we're trying to fit to the nutshell:
  • Sign. coverage in secondary sources --> presumed to be notable
  • (Meet an sub-notability guideline --> presumed to be notable) (this one, lets leave out pending the RFC)
  • An article's main topic should be notable.
  • Content of an article on a notable main topic is not further limited by notability.
I will point that "topic" is consistent with other guidelines (particularly NOT) so we should stay consistent.
So considering these:
(The SNG section is a placeholder but would be removed in a current version). This gets all four fun facts quickly and easily and in order of importance at least in the current editing environment. "Primary topic" is better than "main topic" or "topic" alone as yes, a topic may have several sub-topics, but "primary topic" should be obvious. --MASEM 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MASEM, you show your customary skill at concision--but I would just substitute the word "independent" for "secondary" The question o fjust what counts as a secondary source has proven to be confusing, as Wikipedia seems to sometimes use it in a special meaning. The combination of significant, reliable and independent is enough to take care of the common valid objections to non-notable subjects. DGG (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I disagree. In a great many areas, if not all, secondary sources, as per WP:NOR, are essential in formulating articles properly based on sources. No one denies that there is confusion as to the detail, but you can't just cut it out due to complexity. The existence of secondary sources are critically important to a useful concept of notability as an inclusion criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is key to remember that sources sit on two axes: the relationship to the facts (first- and third-party) and the type of treatment of the facts (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Verifiability means a strong reliance on third-party, utilizing first-party to suppliment; the GNG, on the other hand, requires topics to be covered more than just repeating the details -- aka having secondary sources. This is why we can't (yet) justify episode articles only on TV guide descriptions (third-party but primary sources since they do no analysis) while we can use (with caution) commentary from the producers or actors as first-party, secondary sources. --MASEM 02:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TV Guide descriptions are generally first party: they are provided by the production companies and printed verbatim.Kww (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nutshell at the moment is just fine. For those who disagree: What is it that the nutshell says, or doesn't say, that leaves you, or the newcomer, confused? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment, I agree with SmokeyJoe. Mentioning WP:NNC in the nutshell is stretching things a tad far, but distinguishing main topic from sub-topic warrants concern. WP:NNC exists as a courtesy clarification of the limits of WP:N, but is not essential to policy. WP:NPOV covers content issues that relate to notability (the code words for notability in NPOV are significance and proportion). WP:NNC tries to eliminate policy overlap (a Mickey Mouse solution) and would look rather silly in the nutshell statement. I also think that we should attend to the vague 'instead' language in WP:NNC before squeezing it into the nutshell.
  • It would probably be best to address one of these issues at a time. The main-topic/sub-topic issue is more basic and should be solved before tackling the WP:NNC issue (if people want to pursue it). My first poke at nominating a change to the nutshell would be to change a suitable article topic to suitable as the primary [or main] topic of an article. The downside to this suggestion is that it expands the nutshell by four words.
—Kanodin—VENT— 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree that NNC can be a red herring, so keeping it out is fine. And the matter of SNGs is still up in the air but as noted above, a small clause can be added once its resolved once their purpose is confirmed. The only major concern is that the nutshell never mentions the word "notability". If a new user created a non-notable article (unaware of policy/guideline) and it was put up to AFD for being non-notable, the nutshell would not serve them well. Mind you, I see the point of not stating "notability" to avoid with the non-WP, more common definition of the term (and IMO, with the way the RFC is going, I think I see a way to depreciate our use of "notability" for a better term, but that's neither here nor there), and having it in the nutshell could complicate matters.. --MASEM 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having the nutshell define notability might be good. Having the nutshell refer to notability is bad. People will come to WP:N to find out what this “notability” thing is, and being self-referential is not very helpful. Not using the word “notable” as far as possible is, I think, a good thing, because our modified definitions causes confusion.
  • Deprecating “notability” would be a good idea except for two problems: (1) Finding a better word/phrase; (2) The word is so deeply entrenched in our history that people will keep using it, and without WP:N, they will go back to misusing in the confusing, undefined manner that people used to use it (along the lines of “not encyclopaedic” which degenerates down to “I don’t like it”). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't go too far, this is just a nutshell. y base argument was that everything is referred to as "topic" - Article subject as well as sub-topics in the article, and this might be confusing. You got several statements, even outside of the nutshell, that say the article topic must be notable and then a blurb stating that topics in the article need not be notable (which, in and of itself, is misleading too). So I was just looking for a better way to phrase one or the other of these things. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid attack

Could people comment here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using AN/I because I am not requesting administrative action but rather the comments on any editor who cares about this guideline. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in my two cents there. I think your problem is about WP:NPOV compliance, not WP:N. This is one of those situations where WP:NNC is actually useful. May I suggest the village pump or other pages on violent acts? —Kanodin—VENT— 13:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defining notability and football coaches

I just posted this on the Help desk and then thought it might be better posted here. A recently created project seem to stretch WP:NOTABILITY to include a large number of football coaches who are not notable under the normal rules of WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. The arguments are set out at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_J._West. How do I set about extending the afd to embrace all such non-notables without falling foul of WP:FORUMSHOPPING ? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Template:AfD footer (multiple). I don't know how to use it. If that does not work, get an admin on your side to use one AfD to cover all the nominated articles. Point all AfD links toward that single AfD discussion. Expect a lot of participation. —Kanodin—VENT— 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. Expanding an Afd that has been going on for a while is wrong. Multiples have to be submitted together so the discussion covers them all. Submitting as a multiple afd isn't appropriate in this case anyway, as college football head coaches isn't a tight enough group to qualify. Now if you were submitting a bunch of articles about people that had being a part of West's staff as their sole claim to notability, then you would have grounds. If your issue is with a project's interpretation of WP:BIO you should discuss it at their talk page. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The folks attending to those AfD discussions can best answer these questions of appropriateness. The template I pointed to suggests creating an AfD the traditional way (to see how it goes) before putting multiple AfDs together. Kittybrewster should bring this idea up at any relevant existing AfDs and all the talk pages under future AfD consideration. The people there are the likely stakeholders of a multi-AfD. That way there will be fewer surprises. Also keep in mind that there could be other people waiting for this move to happen, because if it is appropriate, it saves a lot of time.
  • Yeah. Don't mix existing and new AfD hearings. It messes with discussion time periods, and people may leave a discussion once they make a single contribution.
  • Finally, think about how much time you save. How many different articles are we talking about here? If it's five, I wouldn't bother. If it's 30, I would get an admin in on the situation before doing anything else. —Kanodin—VENT— 06:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

When it comes to hip-hop musicians, are mixtape articles allowed on Wikipedia? See Template:50 Cent.

If it's covered by reliable third-party sources, then yes. If there's an artist who would get coverage for mixtapes, it would be 50 Cent, among others. Randomran (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability subguideline on music uses the following wording (effectively summarised by Randomran): "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask this because mixtapes for other rappers such as Snoop Dogg were deleted quickly. Maybe this should apply to 50 Cent. I'm just saying. Fclass (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to save an article from notability-related deletion is to find sources. That said, I'm pretty confident that 50 Cent's early mixtapes are notable. Randomran (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be easier to have an article on 50cent mixtapes. That would e easier to source than individual articles on each tape, and less likely to end up in arguments over the one tape that has only one trivial source... Guy (Help!) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration

In light of the RFC's present results, considering both the pros and cons and what concerns editors have for certain proposals, I have created this essay as a start of an idea to resolve notability issues, basically that we need to rework what we have as a structure for inclusion, using the GNG as one obvious measure, and reworking the SNGs to become inclusion sub-guidelines as the other measure. To deal with the matter of sourcing and other policies, those policies become the metrics by which we consider how much we talk about a topic. Can it be sourced through third-party sources (like most GNG-met topics can be) (among other considerations)? Great, it gets an article, otherwise it needs to be covered as part of a larger topic or grouped with other similar topics. The SNGs would need a major revamp to make sure that they describe inclusion and that the criteria is globally approved of. And I know Gavin or someone else will likely question that this will create a lot of non-notable lists, which I admit is there, but that's the reason to vet the SNGs to make sure that such lists include content we want to cover without overwhelming sourced information relating to a more overarching topic. (eg episode lists are ok, lists of major/recurring characters ok, but lists of one-shot characters are not appropriate for inclusion -- unless alone they meet the GNG).

My realization is that we have two WP mission aspects, the broadness and the verification, that clash. We want good discussion of a topic if there's lots of third-party and secondary sources about it, but when that's not available, a topic deemed worthy to be included still needs to be discussed, just in a much more limited form and in a manner that still is verifiable (just, likely from primary sources only). It's a more positive spin without ditching notability (as the GNG is still the catchall for anything that doesn't fit a SNG), and really is only a small tweak on how we have our current framework; the core of making this work is getting the SNGs right, and I don't have a big problem erring on the side of more inclusion to start to see what developments, removing allowable criteria if we find that it allows the wrong type of topics or articles. --MASEM 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for sections

Is there a notability tag for article sections? I have a huge section that needs to go but I want to tag it first. padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, not to canvas but, can you take a look at Köchel_catalogue and see if I'm off my rocker? they are replicating a list of compositions in the body of the article and claim that because one list is by subject and the other is chron they are not redundant. I can't help but think that kind of need is a little too specialized for WP to have to put up with multiple lists of the same stuff. padillaH (review me)(help me) 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lists are not redundant (presumably verifiable original research by Ludwig von Köchel), but that's not what matters. I first question the notability of then Köchel_catalogue (a WP:N issue), then next question the legitimate weight of reproducing the entire list (a WP:NPOV issue). Why is showing the whole list germane to expounding on the notability of Köchel_catalogue? Everything in an article should strive toward explaining the notability of the article topic. Defenders of the list must give an adequate answer to that question. The fact that something is the text of a notable document is not grounds for its inclusion.
Try the {{content}} template:
—Kanodin—VENT— 07:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think they are redundant? They are the same list, sorted two different ways. How is that not redundant? I guess that's my biggest hurdle, lists be damned, how can someone think the same information sorted two different ways is not a repetition of the same information. That is gonna drive me to distraction. A sortable table could take care of the whole mess in one shot. I guess my programming background makes me see lists as tables and I can organize the data without affecting the data. I just don't get the "not redundant" argument. But thanks for the advice and the tag. I've placed an RfC so we'll see how it goes. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to stop using the vague statement "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content", and phrase it in the affirmative. According to our policy, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Perhaps a more useful heading would be in the affirmative: "notability guidelines indirectly limit article content", or perhaps "limit the amount of coverage, but do not necessarily exclude coverage". I'm looking for a phrasing that is more accurate. Randomran (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

I would like to propose that we rename this page Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline. The main reason for this is the incredible offence it gives to article subjects who clearly and unambiguously fail our inclusion criteria, to be told that they are not notable. It's a recurrent source of complaints to WP:OTRS, and wold be vastly easier for non-Wikipedians to understand in deletion related discussions and user talk page discussions. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. John Reaves 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted that I've written based on the current RFC results that approaching this as Inclusion is the "right" way to go for many reasons; "notability" as per defined by the GNG is still part of that as any topic that is notable per GNG can be included, but there's more than just that we really should be consider. I point again to my draft of what I think this could look like at User:Masem/Inclusion Guideline. --MASEM 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea by JzG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Daniel (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are often mislead or confused by the term notablity. Real world language is preferable. WilyD 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a rename actually makes some sense. "Notability" conjures up too many real-life intuitions about what is or is not important. This is not about importance. It's about whether we have decent sourcing or not. That said, I'm not sure that "Inclusion" sums it up. I think "Minimum Sources" might be a good way to frame it, but I'm not sure. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would also go a long way to clearing up the perpetual confusion between "notability" and "important/famous". I support. Shereth 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So simple! Yes, "Inclusion guideline" is more clear, and avoids the insult of calling thousands of people non-notable every week. henrik•talk 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Wikipedia:Inclusion as a rename instead of Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline, for more flexibility if this page's status changes at some point. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we need to reinforce the fact that this is a guideline, the policy is WP:V, WP:NPOV and to a certain extent WP:NOT.
The problem I have with "guideline" is its vagueness and scope for unconstructive debate around the margins. I would agree with "Inclusion Criteria", and my initial objection elsewhere was largely based on the fact that many WP projects have set out their own more specific criteria, and "guideline" would possibly have forced them to re-evaluate those criteria, which I can only see leading to dissension. I don't want to see this debate diffuse, as have so many others, into nothingness. We have better things to do, although the principle of not causing offence is useful, but not determinative. --Rodhullandemu 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but "criteria" sounds like a firm policy, meet X and you are automatically in or out, whereas there may be a consensus to the opposite in individual cases (such as schools, which are often included even without non-trivial reliable independent sources). But just "Inclusion" would not carry that baggage. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should form a committee to discuss the proposal to rename the guideline. Just kiddin. :P -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&oldid=239123746"