Wikipedia talk:Notability

Active discussions

Adding one new thing to the current SNG textEdit

If you have not been following ANI and events that have filtered down into WP:NSPORTS and WP:GEOLAND, basically, we have had problems with mass creation of stub articles based on information taken from simple databases (some with questionable reliability) and nothing else. Its clear due to how these have discussed at ANI that the community does not want mass creation of articles simply based on a database entry even if that meets an SNG, and as a result there's been discussion at both of these SNGs to try to see about how they can address this.

While whether these changes will actually be made to these SNGs, I do think the issue on mass creation on weak sources can be addressed here. I would suggest that after the current line Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. we could then add "Mass creation of short or stub articles based on simple lists or database sources that would pass an SNG is strongly discouraged." or something to that intent. --Masem (t) 13:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I support it in principle but the wording is confusing. Perhaps shorten / clarify it to: "Mass creation of short or stub articles based on simple lists or database sources is strongly discouraged." North8000 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with North8000 here - the issue isn't whether the stubs would pass an SNG; the point is that mass-creation of such articles is strongly discouraged. Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
My wording usually sucks to start so I am all for any improvements, but you get my point. --Masem (t) 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, "my" version is just yours with some words taken out.  :-) North8000 (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So, to make a specific proposal out of it that would be: Add the following to the end of the first paragraph: "Mass creation of short or stub articles based on simple lists or database sources is strongly discouraged." North8000 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support this, but I also think the slow creation of such stubs should be discouraged. Levivich harass/hound 15:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe we do this "mass creation" to start and then move on to that. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No thanks, I'd rather encourage more stubs (if they are verifiable and reliable) if it means filling out the encyclopedia.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Support North8000 wording amendment Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support amendment. My opinion is that almost any form of mass editing is disruptive, and should be discouraged... but we can start with this. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support amendment. Articles that don't have content beyond minimal database-type facts are not in the best interest. Reywas92Talk 19:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You can add WP:PROF to the SNGs for which this issue has come up. The ones I keep running into are the old sub-stubs from one particular user (under several user names) of the form "So-and-so of (employer) was named Fellow of the IEEE in (year)". They're automatically notable under WP:PROF, and usually easily expanded into at least a real stub, but they look so stubby and undersourced that people keep tagging them for notability or deletion (recent example). I'm not sure their creation was as "mass" as the geostubs, but there are quite a few of them and I think that form of article creation by expanding a line from a database without any individualized attention should be discouraged regardless. My only caution is that these databases can be a good source of missing article topics and I would not want to discourage individual hand-crafted article creations that actually expand on these database entries by bringing in other sources, even when the result is still a stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The keyword in this addition is "mass", and points to both human-made and bot-made articles. Someone that makes the effort to create a non-stubby article based on one of these SNGs that normally lead to mass creation should be applauded, and that's the effort we don't want to stop; only strongly discouraging mass creation. --Masem (t) 20:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support North8000's version, though not entirely sure if this is an RfC or general discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support North8000's version. It's good WP:PAGEDECIDE guidance. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC).
  • Conditional support for North8000 version assuming there is clarification of what is meant by "mass creation". I'm not sure where to draw the line, but the problem has arisen in cases where people churn out articles at a rate as fast as one per minute. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe something like "... mass creation of articles at a pace of less than five minutes per article ..." It is admittedly a bit arbitrary but I think it captures the type of mass cration that we are trying to discourage. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The fuzzy Wikipedian system leaves many things to interpretation. The current proposal is one step and then we could tweak and refine. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, let the issue of what exactly constitutes "mass creation" be hashed out elsewhere, we just want to discourage editors from doing that. --Masem (t) 00:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Without some clarification as to what "mass creation" means, I think the proposal is vague, fundamentally flawed, and simply kicks the can down the road. Given the lack of willingness to clarify, I must change to oppose. Cbl62 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, that can be determined in discussions when it comes up. This is how most policies and guidelines are worded and operate. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I simply believe that the proposal, without some definition of "mass creation", invites mischief. Short articles sourced to a database can be a legitimate and valuable starting point in the natural collaborative process of building the encyclopedia. Especially when created with some discretion. The problem that led to this proposal is the mass creation of one- or two-line cricket and Olympian micro-stubs based on an SNG that is not properly calibrated to GNG. I support the effort to constrain such mass article creation. I am concerned, however, that it will be misused if there is no definition or guidance on what constitutes "mass creation". Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a guideline, the advice being added is simply a caution. Mass creation is a behavior problem and while the issue of using single source to meet an SNG to create articles en masse is perhaps the most likely way this happens, we'd still be evaluating behavior issues and not necessarily on this piece of advice. For example, going off GEOLAND, if some experienced editor saw that for some reason in a populous country that we failed to have documented all recognized towns over 25,000 people and went and mass created them as stubs based on a reliable sourced database, with this advice in place, there likely would be no major issue; this piece of advice is not meant to get in the way of those that know what they are doing. It is meant to warn editors that may not know the ropes to avoid going there, and hence the need to be explicit on what mass creation is defined as beyond its core principles. --Masem (t) 23:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Cbl62 I respect and admire your carefulness on avoiding unintended consequences, we need more of that. But it's hard to imagine a situation where this would go awry. Plus one additional issue is that it would be so difficult and probably support-losing to create an explicit rule (vs. a general consideration amongst others to be taken into account) that such an effort could constitute a poison pill for this effort or create an overreach (via an explicit stand-alone rule) that could have more of the unintended consequences that you are being careful about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the proposed addition. More broadly, I also support discouraging the creation of single source, one sentence stubs in general, whether written rapidly or slowly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, and agree with User:Cullen328 as well. JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal supposes that simple lists or databases are inherently bad sources. This is incorrect because they may be quite authoritative and excellent. It's the quality of the information which matters, not its format. Like Blueboar says, it's mass-editing which is the real problem – grinding with tools like AWB to boost edit-count. Creating countless rules is another vice. WP:BURO, WP:CREEP, WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW strongly discourage this too but the OP pays no attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The addition does not say anything about the quality of databases. Simply that populating articles only from databases in mass is the problem, which is how the wording is focused. Someone who makes exactly one stub article from an RS database that otherwise meets a SNG is not going to have their hand slapped nor is that article likely to be rushed to be deleted. --Masem (t) 13:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support- I agree with North8000's proposed wording. Reyk YO! 12:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support- Especially with North8000's wording. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 1) Why whould "mass creation" be discouraged and not creation in general? What I see, the quality of mass created stubs is better compared to stubs created by unexperienced (stub) creators. 2) A large % of sports articles started as a stub and expanded later. Also stubs attracts a lot of new users, including myself. As there is a large importance of statistics and numbers on articles on sportspeople, good stubs are of high value. A sportpeople is known for her/his results; and those results are the perfect way to start a sports article. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • One-off creation of stubs isn't a problem - someone might be going through a book, see a name come up , affirm it meets a SNG but we have no article, and makes a stub with the minimum sourcing with the likely expectation they may come back to improve later. Mass creators, however, do not appear to consider returning to improve the articles they create and that's generally where the problem lies. Also, in terms of sportspeople, while you may claim their importance is in their results, WP is not a stats book and we have to focus outside what their numbers are and downplay the stats per WP:NOT#STATS. We can include them, but the article must be far more than just that. --Masem (t) 12:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, and would support it without "mass" as well. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose there's nothing wrong with stubs. There's nothing wrong with using databases as stubs. There is something wrong with misinterpreting data, which is what happened with WP:GEOLAND. I disagree with the aim of this proposal, and I'm not liking the direction the community is taking which is inherently limiting the scope of Wikipedia instead of expanding it.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • While there was one issue with GEOLAND and the use of a questionable database, the issues of mass creation were not related to just that. The community has clearly expressed concern that an editor that mass creates articles with no intention of going back to expand them beyond stubs, just because they can show the article passes an SNG, is potentially disrupting the work. --Masem (t) 15:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree that it can be disruptive, but I don't think it is always necessarily disruptive. If there's a positive use case for mass creation in the future, I don't want to block out the possibility of its use if that makes sense. I'd also want to know what we are going to define as mass-creation.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I think that extra consideration is given if it is a case of an individual taking the time to create an individual article. For example, there about 8.5 million species of plants and animals the don't have an article in Wikipedia. If one person spent time creating an article on one of them from database / tertiary sources, (even is just a stub) the community would almost certainly accept that. If someone created a bot to generate 8.5 million new article from a species database, the community would not. This documents that. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional support The premise is great. I wonder if it should be amended to change to "based on simple lists or database sources a single list or database source" to be more explicit that an article should contain multiple sources. I can envision a scenario where someone might create stubs following an election, or after an awards ceremony, where a single list is the basis for creation of the article, but there are other sources available.--Enos733 (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that I'm happier with it in, than without it. Nothing's perfect but this would be a small step in the right direction. Nigej (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose whilst I have issues with mass creation of low-quality stubs, especially by experienced editors (heck, I've even seen AWB used to create one-sourcers by an experienced editor in the WP:FOOTY community), I don't think this is the best way to go about fixing it as I see no issue with "mass creation" of stubs since someone will come along and expand them. Also, this is already implied afaiac and basically how these SNGs work in practise. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not a notability issue. --Michig (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - While I can see a role for database-generated content in the encyclopedia, that role goes through an interface to Wikidata, not the creation of stubs. Database-only sourced articles are bad for the human-edited part of the encyclopedia, and we should not allow the SNGs to be used to wave them through. These articles have wasted a lot of time at XfD, and will continue to do so if we do not make a rule against them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, this shouldn't even have to be clarified, but apparently it does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support North8000's version as an improvement to the status quo, which should help with our problem with mass-created database stubs. While manually-created articles should be held to the same standards, Masem has a good point that manually-created articles don't appear to be as problematic, so it's fair to start with the mass-created ones. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support North8000's version minus the word "mass", and support the overall spirit of Masem's suggestion. I think we can work out the wording and this is a big step in the right direction. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's what would make me support: 1. We figure out what "mass" creation is, and 2. Change it to "based on simple lists or database sources a single list or database source" (got the idea from Enos733). Otherwise I will Oppose. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been open for a month....time to close? BTW while I understand that it's being called "per North8000" for identification purposes, I feel guilty unless I emphasize that Masem wrote it and I just shortened it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course I'm involved, but is this a good summary?: Of course it's not a vote, but there were 21 supporting it and 8 opposing it. Included in the 21 is two conditional supports, one conditional on an even stronger version and one on some tweaks so maybe it's just 19 or 20. The most substantial support argument is in Masem's original proposal which is too substantial/thorough to recap here, and in posts assuaging concerns raised by those in opposition, and that it can be tweaked after it is in. The most common concern expressed by those in opposition is that lack of a specific meaning for "mass creation" could cause problems. The scope of the process was broader than that for many changes (40+ days on this prominent page with 29 participants) but narrower than a fully advertised RFC. IMHO the result is that there is a sufficient basis for putting it in, with the understanding that it can be tweaked afterwards. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

See the subsection I just opened below. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
IMO we have a decision and should implement it and then it could be modified from there. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Modified proposalEdit

I came here hoping to be able to close this discussion, so sorry North8000 that I'm instead about to extend it. But what I take from the above is that editors are concerned about the creation of low-quality stub pages, either because the database itself is questionable or because the extraction from it is done poorly. The original proposal, however, goes beyond what editors' actual concerns are, and instead uses language that would effectively stop the practice even in the (unfortunately rare) case that the database is high-quality and the extraction is done well, and even in circumstances in which a local consensus of editors might otherwise agree to move forward. Therefore, I'd propose modifying the addition to read: Consensus should be sought before the mass creation of short or stub articles based on simple lists or database sources. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Asking for affirmative consensus before allowing any mass-creations will resolve the concerns editors have expressed above, as editors will not support mass-creations if the source is at all questionable, the resulting stubs will be of low quality, or there are any other significant issues. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Question - Given this isn't actually dependent on notability, doesn't this make more sense to add to WP:MASSCREATE or WP:MEATBOT or the like first? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    Oh wow. I really wish that those links had been brought up at the start of the long discussion above, as it likely would've averted the entire need for it. The concerns that are leading to all the support above are already covered by those pages, and they're already policy. I would guess that many !voters above were not familiar with what those sections say, and that they would've been much more inclined to view this as unneeded or as WP:CREEP if they were. I'm not precisely sure how we should proceed from here, but this discussion should certainly not be closed until we've had a chance to see how that new information affects the direction of consensus. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO we should close and act on the first one and then have an RFC to tweak it. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Do manufacturers qualify for WP:NOTABILITYEdit

Before I write anything about caravan or motorhomes (something I have an interest in), do manufacturers automatically qualify for WP:NOTABILITY due to the amount of third-party sources on their products? I created Elddis which already does have a few sources on its products.

Looking for some help. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

They would fall into WP:NCORP which has rather strict requirements about non-promotional coverage to be present. --Masem (t) 12:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia is outdated and incorrectEdit

Wikipedia:Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia is a notability essay that is sometimes cited by editors - often as WP:ALMA - in discussions or edits related to the "Notable alumni" sections of school, college, and university articles. I'm dropping a polite note here to let everyone know that the article is woefully outdated and the advice it provides is incorrect; I've left some details in its Talk page. It needs to be updated or deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, while you might not yourself like the essay, upon reading it (I hadn't encountered it before) it is not outdated at all, its advice is simple and sound, and your talk page objections are either irrelevant or wrong. It takes a very problematic essay indeed to be subject to deletion, and you don't come close to making a case for this one to be so objectionable as to warrant it. Ravenswing 21:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Should WP:NMEDIA be removed from the SNG sidebar?Edit

Write an Article on an Assistant Professor in Cotton UniversityEdit

I want to write a new biographic Article on Dr.Raysul Hoque. How to start it? Raysul20 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

First you should check whether Dr. Hoque meets the relevant notability guideline at WP:PROF. It is very unusual for an assistant professor to do that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
With single-digit citation counts for a single-digit number of publications, Hoque clearly does not meet that notability guideline. If created, the article is very likely to be quickly deleted, making it even more difficult to create again if and when Hoque becomes more notable. Additionally, your user page indicates that you may be the same person as Hoque, in which case WP:AUTOBIO forbids you from writing a biography of yourself. I suggest you look for far more senior researchers to write biographies on, or better improve Wikipedia's coverage of technical topics, which tends to lag behind its coverage of people. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Are astronauts notable ?Edit

With the resurrection of space tourism this year (currently we have about 12 such orbital space tourists scheduled to fly, and more to come), there are regular AfDs and discussions about the notability of space tourists. I am not discussing suborbital space tourists (i.e. customers of Blue Origin New Shepard or Virgin Galactic) who do a 80 km / 10 minutes hop. I am talking of people making a flight on Dragon, Starliner or Soyuz ; they go for an orbital flight of a few days and possibly a visit to the ISS. Are they intrinsically notable ? If not, what is the criterion ? More generally should we have an article for each astronaut, like a payload specialist who flew once on the Shuttle in the 90s ? Hektor (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

How about sticking with GNG. Coverage has to be substantial, and about the subject and there has to be evidence it is not just newsy or a one-off?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I am always struggling with GNG. Let us take two examples: Mark Pathy, a recent one, and William A. Pailes, an older one. To which extent do they satisfy GNG ? Hektor (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
After a quick search for potential sources using Google News, my initial take is that both men would pass GNG. There are potential sources out there, even if they are not yet cited in the articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Easy answer: no, they are not inherently notable - we might have been able to say that for astronauts prior to the Shuttle missions when they only numbered in the few dozen but not now. They would fall into WP:NBIO as an SNG, and their accomplishment as an astronaut may help meet one of the criteria there but otherwise they have to meet the GNG. --Masem (t) 15:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Stick to GNG and other policies. Inherently notable? No. The first space tourist (ie, not a professional astronaut) might also have substantial news coverage but may be a case of WP:1E so consensus may decide it's better to cover them in the relevant article, rather than give them a biography. It's hard to predict, really. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
+1. There's no need to "struggle" with the GNG. It's well defined, heavily footnoted, and with years of consensus around what constitutes the various parameters. Ravenswing 16:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ravenswing, Blueboar & Masem. They gave the key answers and are in essence in agreement. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In support of everyone who has replied so far, I would say that pretty well every astronaut so far would pass the general notability guideline, but, as space tourism becomes a thing, that may well not be true in the future. In a slightly related field I would compare this to exoplanets. It used to be that every one immediately became notable because known ones were very scarce and each attracted extensive coverage, but now we are getting to the stage where it is an exception for a star not to have planets. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with everyone else about GNG. Also I wouldn't call space tourists "astronauts" any more than I'd call cruise line passengers "sailors." Abuser:Levivich 18:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Cruise line passengers rarely get to command (Jared Isaacman) or be the pilot (Sian Proctor, Larry Connor) of the ship. Hektor (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
A better analogy might be with aeronautics... the earliest airplane pilots (those daring young men in their flying machines) were all fairly notable - simply for getting in a contraption that actually flew!
As time passed, however, and flying became more commonplace, simply being a pilot became less and less notable - to be a notable pilot, one needed to do something more than just fly (think of combat aces, flying solo over the Atlantic, breaking the sound barrier, performing an emergency landing in the Hudson River, etc). Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Is that the exception or is that common though? Levivich 13:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Stand-alone listEdit

What does "stand-alone...list" mean in the context of WP:GNG? I don't see much of an explanation... I can see at least two possible meanings - an entry notable enough to have its own mainspace page, OR an article that isn't spun off from another, like a list article that wasn't spun off from a larger page. ɱ (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It means an article that is primary a list (standing off on its own). Eg something like List of sovereign states (though being named "List of..." is not a requirement). --Masem (t) 03:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

New explanatory supplement on "significant coverage"Edit

I just wrote Wikipedia:What is significant coverage? to try to help provide more information on what we generally mean in practice when we say "significant coverage". It's pretty bare so far, so I'd appreciate help improving it, particularly with examples, while keeping it concise enough to be friendly for newcomers. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 08:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is entirely variable and depends very highly on context. Significant coverage for say a woman physician in the 19th century, a small island in the Caribbean/Pacific, an academic in Africa is going to be far less than information available for any war, sport figure, or popular culture star, ever. Availability of published sources vary by time frame, material available now is far greater than material available when print sources were the only medium; location, as smaller countries do not have the access to resources to publish or distribute their works; and language, the wider the language is used, the more likely sources are to be published and vice verse. Comparing the amount of information available in varying centuries, in varying languages and countries, or on mainstream topics vs under- or unrepresented topics is about as useful as comparing an apple to a fish.
100 words seems like an arbitrary measure drawn out of air. It is a huge generalization that does not take into account who was involved, what was it about, when did it happen, where did it happen, why was it important/notable, and how was it accomplished. Quantity is not equal to quality. 100 words of drivel is still drivel, whereas a single statement that says "X was president of Y" gives an indication that the person had significance in a certain sphere. (Doesn't meet significant coverage without other sources, but the weight of it, is "heavier" than triviality.) Wikipedia allows combining sources to meet significant coverage, thus putting a minimum word count on each source is not only against the spirit of guideline, but it changes the focus from evaluating the quality of the material. In general, significant coverage for anything should provide enough information for a detailed, non-promotional article to be written about the topic without original research being done. SusunW (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree it can vary by context. That's why I'm hoping the page will ultimately include examples from a variety of contexts to help illustrate our norms. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb I'd appreciate a ping next time ;). The truth is not that it "can" vary by context, but that it "does" and that there are no "norms". Editors must weigh when and where something happened to have an inkling of how much information is even available. You asked for an example, so I'll give you one. Women's history did not emerge as an academic field before 1970-1971. Prior to that time very few women appeared in the historical record. Even today women's history is not included in basic history studies, one must take courses in gender or women's studies (typically at the university level) to learn about women's experiences, contributions, and lives. The same holds true for other non-mainstream subjects, (indigenous people, cultural variances, LGBTQ+ community members, organizations developed to serve minority populations, etc.) which have typically been under/un-represented in the historic record.
Historic people and events must be judged in the context of their history. Comparing the amount of information available for say women to men in a given time period is fruitless. When and where did it happen, what was the gender/ethnicity of the people involved, how does information stack up to others in their same group, all need to be asked when weighing historical figures/events and the amount of information likely to exist. All must be evaluated to determine if there is significantly more information available on one vs the other. One absolutely cannot compare the information found on a 17th-20th century topic on what might be available for a 21st century topic. We aren't looking for a number of words or even a number of articles, we are judging whether there is enough sourcing to write a detailed and informative article. That needs to be stated outright. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Not trying to discourage explanatory essays but my experience we want to wait to make sure the essay is sound and generally accepted by the community before adding it to a P&G page, as that action gives it the weight of being "official" even if it says "essay" at the top. I would recognize holding off linking it on WP:N for now but continue to get input on it here until it can be linked. Again, being an essay, it doesn't need to be consensus-perfect (like what we had to do with the SNG language) but it should be reasonably accepted. --Masem (t) 14:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: That's fine by me. I want this to discussion to be about how to expand the supplement, not a debate about whether it's ready to be linked here. I note that despite the several comments this post has drawn so far, no one has yet edited the supplement page, which was the whole purpose of me posting here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The link to my own essay which tried to merely explain the status quo got reverted indicating that it was not particularly special compared to other essays for a link to be in such a prominent place. IMO this one which promulgates a new standard created by an individual falls a few notches short of that to be in the same prominent place. I mention the previous situation not because it itself is relevant, but because it discusses the higher "bar" for putting a link in that place. I applaud the work and efforts but plan to revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but "promulgates a new standard" is a severe misreading of what the explanatory supplement page is for. What was the page you previously tried to link? The only other pages I could find were WP:100 words (which doesn't seem to enjoy much support) and WP:Extracting the meaning of significant coverage (which isn't very friendly for newcomers looking to figure out how to interpret sigcov). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. As I noted, the mention of the previous exclusion is irrelevant except to say that there is a high bar for listing on / linking from the wp:notability page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll echo what other's have said above. First, I wouldn't call something an "explanatory supplement" without some level of buy-in from the community. Second, any definition of SIGCOV that doesn't take into account the historical era is worthless. These days, anybody with a publicity agent and an SEO campaign is generating tons of verbiage which is absolutely worthless from a SIGCOV point of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: The reply I just made to Masem (which edit conflicted with you) speaks somewhat to your comment. Regarding how to tag, I looked for something usable as a "explanatory supplement under construction" tag but didn't find anything; if you want to create such a template and add it I'd be fine with that. I would not be okay with changing it to an essay, as that's not what the page is intended to be; as I said just above to North8000 (ec again, sorry), the idea here is not to create any new standard, but rather to better communicate to any newcomers digging into the weeds (probably since their page is at AfD) what the norms are that we all as experienced editors have built up an intuitive sense of. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    Note you don't have limit yourself to templates; you can put your own customized message at the top of the page. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sdkb, My quibbling about the "explanatory supplement" was just a minor nit. My main point was that raw volume is meaningless. A good way to look at this is similar to how statisticians look at conditional probability. If I told you, "In a recent vaccine trial, 10 people developed a rash", is that significant? You can't even begin to answer that unless you know how many people were in the trial. Was it 10 out of 20, or 10 out of 20,000? It also depends on the prevalence of rash in the general population.
    The same idea should apply to SIGCOV. "I found 10 places that wrote about subject X, and on average each one wrote Y words". That's meaningless unless you also know much much was written about all subjects. Today, we're generating gigabytes (terabytes?) of electronic text every day, so the significance of any bit of text is small. You only have to go back 100 or 200 years to get to the point where few people knew how to read or write, and the tools for creating information in a durable form were expensive and rare. So any individual item you can find increases in significance. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, I agree. Hopefully the page as it develops will communicate that SIGCOV is about more than just raw volume. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I wrote Wikipedia:Minimum coverage with a similar intent, also trying to broadly incorporate standards from policies such as WP:V and WP:NOT. A lot of editors will tell you that it's a quantitative AND qualitative test. Needless to say, I think hitting a word count would (a) miss the point of writing a good article, and (b) be even more susceptible to gamesmanship than what we have now. I think some disagreemnet is natural, and for that reason, we keep a big pile of essays where no one but a few editors will read them. Even though AFD can be acrimonious from time to time, the status quo appears to be generally in the right ballpark. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A few other structural notes. The standards that do exist are in the guidelines. What the crowd at AFD decides is what to do with the article, not answer the specific question of whether significant coverage is satisfied. The crowd may very well be considering other factors. So if the standards are in the guidelines, and the crowd does not decide on meeting this criteria specifically, what would be the basis for saying "here is the answer" other than saying that it is creating the standard? The good and bad news is that the essay does not say much. It gives two examples which are so extreme regarding this question and then gives us the obvious answer on those and then refers to a "100 word" essay. Thanks for your efforts, but I think that these things need noting. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I see an assertion here that should not go unchallenged. SusunW stated that significant coverage is "entirely variable and depends very highly on context." That is incorrect. There are some topics about which significant coverage is substantially less likely to exist; that much is true. What that means in practice is that we will have fewer articles on those topics, and not, absolutely not, that we will change the standards for them. We have, for example, more articles about actors than garbage collectors. That does not mean we change what "significant coverage" means for garbage collectors; it just means we have more articles about one thing than the other. "Significant coverage" means the same thing in all cases. If some things are less likely to achieve that, we will be less likely to have articles about it. But the standard is uniform. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe in your mind the standard is uniform across professions but in practice in AfDs it is not. To take an obvious example: something that would normally count as significant coverage for a politician, an in-depth profile of their life history and current beliefs, is routinely discounted as "not significant" when it is in the context of a losing or in-progress electoral campaign. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, that is in that passing the notability criteria is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have an article on a subject. Editors could still decide that an article should be deleted on other grounds, even if it is about a subject that would pass the GNG. But we should have no articles about any subject which would not pass it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you really, honestly believe that "significant coverage" is an objective standard? Of course it is not. And are you are saying, as you seem to be, that significant coverage on some web page about obscure bands that has been decided to be reliable because nobody without an interest can be arsed to argue about it is equivalent to coverage in academic books or articles? You are so wrong that I couldn't believe that we could have an administrator who actually thought in such a way. But then I saw that you are a software developer, so I have my explanation for why. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, certainly not. The provenance of course matters, and the source has to be reliable. High-quality academic sources are of course more likely to be reliable than some random website. (Though I'm not sure how me developing software has a single thing to do with source quality.) But either a subject has a substantial amount of coverage in high-quality, reliable, independent sources, or it...well, doesn't. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
And who's to say what is substantial? Or high-quality? It comes down to human judgement, something that software developers (of whom I used to be one) tend to be lacking in. It simply isn't the bright-line distinction that you are claiming it to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Can we please not disparage professions? isaacl (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Uh...wow. I tend to have a pretty thick skin and don't really care, but you are insulting an awful lot of people here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade of course we have different standards, because sources differ. I am certainly not advocating to include non-encyclopedic topics, whatever they may be, in an encyclopedia. We can also assume one is using reliable sourcing. The fact remains that to write a comprehensive and detailed article about a global current event, one might be able to do it with 2-3 sources. Makes sense, its current news and articles are likely to cover the event in depth. But to write a similarly detailed article about say a significant and historic bridge in Italy it might require more than 10 sources. It isn't current news and scholars are more likely to write articles about aspects of it than to do a full book on a bridge. What meets significant coverage for one article may not be the same as for another because the depth of source material differs. Significant coverage isn't about the length of a source, but about the depth of the material it provides. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, we certainly don't know enough to posit a fixed standard. For starters, seldom is the "significant coverage" issue decided separately. My own analysis (WP:How Wikipedia notability works) purports that not only does the wp:notability ecosystem use "expected-coverage-for-that-type-of-topic" to vary the coverage standard, but that the strength of coverage needed to pass in general (e.g. at AFD) is also varied by incorporating secondary considerations into the decision. For example, if a topic is highly encyclopedic then the crowd would be less tough on GNG and the opposite if not. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

WHYN. At least one secondary sourceEdit

User:WhatamIdoing added it in October 2011

I guess it was unnoticed by many as a small thing in a softly worded explanation of the rule. It is, however, inconsistent with the GNG. The GNG requires two, not less, secondary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The GNG requires some secondary sources but we have never enunciated a minimum number beyond one, because that would be gamed. A really strong full length biographic work may be the only secondary source about a person, otherwise documented in other ways but not secondary, but that would be sufficient to pass the GNG. --Masem (t) 02:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. Multiple has always meant two at a minimum, if push comes to shove. The only wiggle room is that maybe one of the two doesn’t need to be, strictly, a secondary source, but it does need some justification to count like a secondary source and not be a straight primary source. The historical arguments here were whether two is sufficient, whether two satisfies “multiple”, and in practice it is proven that it does. WHYN is a softly written explanation to the newcomer unfamiliar with WP:N, and it never is a good thing to imply the usually unacceptable as the norm. The GNG requires two sources, and among other things these sources should be secondary sources. Also note the language at NOR is in the plural, and it is quite bad that the dot point references NOR but alters the language to say something different. This explanation of the rules should not reword the rules to a different meaning. How can a single secondary source satisfy the NOR requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources (note the plural “sources”)?
Perhaps the fourth WHYN dot point should be reworded with the word “should”. I.e. The required two sources should both be secondary sources, so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Mistake on my part, unrelated to actual discussion. - Neutralhomer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SmokeyJoe: Which WHYN are your refering to? AM or FM? I'll see what I can dig up. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Neither, @Neutralhomer. He's talking about the WP:WHYN section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't even know that section existed. :) I immediately thought the radio stations since we are talking NMEDIA above. :) Nevermind, carry on. :) My apologizes. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, we've spoken multiple times on this pages to why we do not spell out a minimum number of sources, because as soon as you say "2 or more", then you will absolutely see people claim 2 sources exist at AFD regardless of the significant coverage in them and say "keep". We need at least one secondary source, and for all of the secondary sources to show significant coverage. If that can be done by one, extremely detailed in-depth source which happens to be the only source for such a topic, then so be it. Of course, if there is only one source available and its significant coverage leaves much to be desired, then that's going to fail. In other words, one should not read this in absence of considering the amount of significant coverage that the GNG is looking for. --Masem (t) 05:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Since we don't see people making the "at least one secondary source means I get to keep this" claim at AFD, then I doubt that changing this to require two sources would result in people saying "at least two secondary sources means I get to keep this". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
In the past, I have seen plenty of AFDs that people say "there's 2 GNG meeting sources, it passes" but do not argue about the significant coverage provided by those sources. The issue here is that we want editors to think not about the quantity of sources, but instead about the overall quantity of significant coverage that those sources overall provide. This must at least have one secondary source to be considered but the bulk of the time, needs multiple. --Masem (t) 15:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


@SmokeyJoe, see also Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 49#Why, at last, which in turn refers to the prior conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 49#Why in 2011. Between them, we expended 1600 words on that section, not counting subsequent attempts to revise or remove it (like these 1300 words and these 5500 words). I don't think that we can claim this section was unnoticed.
I think you will actually be more interested in the next section in Archive 49. Search for the comments around the phrase "The real question IMO is whether policy compliance requires that these be additive".
IMO the community has not resolved the question of whether all of the GNG's qualities must be contained in a single source, or whether one might combine sources that separately have most of these qualities but collectively have all of the desirable qualities. On a tangential note, I'd rather see a firm rule that says that two independent sources, even if they are primary sources, and even if they don't contain SIGCOV, are absolutely required, no matter what "exception" editors would prefer to see for a favorite subject area. I'm not sure that I see the point of requiring 2+ sources that are INDY+SECONDARY+SIGCOV+RELIABLE when editors keep writing articles for which zero INDY sources are available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Lots of words sure, but not so many of the words address the question of "at least one secondary source" being sufficient. Mostly, it is just your assertion, eg So in practice, WP:NOR basically requires that at least one secondary source exist if we're going to have an article on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC). I object to this statement, WP:NOR does not say this. WP:NOR makes clear statements in the plural. Also, it is not logically consistent with the wording of the GNG. The GNG calls for two source, both of which should be secondary. User:SamBC 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC) makes the most relevant response: "Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. Are we really sure that multiple-secondary is required? Sure, multiple-independent-reliable is, but why does notability require multiple secondary sources? ..." He goes on, tentatively I would call it, and then no more on the multiplicity of secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a semantic problem above. Y'all are saying "if we are to have an article" but what you are really talking about is merely the GNG route in. For example, if it's a sports figure and they did it for a living for one day, they satisfy the SNG route in and GNG is irrelevant / meeting GNG is not required. Meeting GNG is only required when there is no SNG, and I hesitate to toughen up the rule in that area. Non-SNG topics on average include some very encyclopedic ones where IMO the test is already plenty-tough. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but we need at least one secondary source to establish that the sports figure played on that one day… so both SNG and GNG are met. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
A GNG source needs to be a lot more than just that.North8000 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Blueboar, I don't think that ATH requires a secondary source to establish that the sports figure played on that one day. Many articles seem to have been written from tertiary sources (databases that are little more than telephone books for which athlete played for which team at which time). None of the sport-specific criteria require any particular type of source at all. If you're talking about a professional football player, then a photo of an old business record posted on social media by the team's current owner that shows a previously unknown athlete played on this team for one game, then that self-published, non-independent primary source is enough to clear the guidelines at NFOOTY (and all similar rules). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
While it is true that rules of thumb laid out by sports-specific notability guidelines don't need a secondary source, they defer to the general notability guideline upon being challenged, at which point appropriate secondary sources are required. The "Wikipedia has no deadline" principle, though, has a strong influence on how much leeway is given to locate appropriate secondary sources. (That's the consensus that has been upheld repeatedly on the sports notability guidelines discussion page; I appreciate what happens at deletion discussions can vary depending on who participates.) isaacl (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The reason GNG doesn't specify a specific minimum number of sources is that the number of sources required to establish a topic as notable can vary depending on context. For a politician who has a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1, for example, they have to be kept as soon as just one reliable source can be added to verify that the claim to passing NPOL #1 is actually true — they still need more than that before the article can be considered a good one, obviously, but they don't need any more than that to be a keepable article. But conversely, a smalltown city councillor or an unelected candidate for office can show more than two footnotes and still not be deemed to pass GNG, if their sources aren't adequately demonstrating a reason to treat them as significantly more special than other smalltown city councillors or unelected candidates. And similarly, it takes considerably more sources to make an actor notable if you're shooting for NACTOR #1 ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") than it does if you're shooting for NACTOR #3 because he actually won an Oscar or an Emmy, and more sources to make a musician notable if you're shooting for WP:NMUSIC #1 ("Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.") than it does if they win a Juno Award and thus clear NMUSIC #8.
    GNG isn't passed just by showing an arbitrary number of footnotes: it tests sources for their depth, range, quality and context. A person can have a dozen articles in a smalltown community hyperlocal about him and his local pizza restaurant and his failed campaign for town council, and still have a lower GNG score than a person who was the subject of just one book-length biography. The book still might not be enough all by itself if no other sources for that latter person can be found at all, but it would still contribute more toward potential passage of GNG than multiple sources of lesser depth and quality. So GNG isn't just a number: the number of sources is a factor, but the depth of the sources, the quality of the sources, the geographic and temporal range of the sources and the context of what the sources are covering the topic for are also taken into account. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Bearcat, I think that one way to understand SmokeyJoe's question is: Does a source that is independent+SIGCOV+reliable – but not secondary – ever count towards (GNG-type) notability at all? The GNG requires multiple sources. The GNG requires that subjects be established with sources that have four qualities (INDY, SIGCOV, SECONDARY, and RS). When we make our notability calculation, must we exclude sources that have only three of these qualities? Or is it does a source that is INDY+SIGCOV+TERTIARY+RS (or perhaps one that is INDY+SECONDARY+RS but not SIGCOV by itself) "count" somehow towards notability? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, see, I'd say it still depends. For instance, Interviews, in which the subject is speaking about themselves in the first person, aren't a priori support for notability in and of themselves, such that you could base a Wikipedia article solely on one or two of those and claim that the person had passed WP:GNG — but if a person already has a good mix of other types of sources, then there's nothing wrong with using a Q&A interview to source some additional facts supported by that interview. You can even sparingly use a person's own self-published Twitter tweets to source basic facts that aren't notability claims, such as their birthdate or their hometown — you just can't argue that a person's own self-published tweets constitute notability-making sources in and of themselves. So it would depend on whether the less than ideal sources are all the person has, in which case they wouldn't pass GNG, or whether there's a good mix of GNG-worthy sources already in the article (or available to improve the article with), in which case the less than ideal sources aren't really helping to build GNG per se but also aren't detracting from it. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
These examples are regarding the sourcing of information within the article, for which non-secondary sources can be appropriate. However for the purpose of determining if a subject meets English Wikipedia's standards for having an article, I think primary-source tweets aren't appropriate. I know some have argued that an interview with a highly respected interviewer should be used as an indication of meeting English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. My personal view is the reasons why that interview subject was chosen are what's important for determining if Wikipedia's standards are met, and so we should use appropriate secondary sources for those underlying reasons, not the interview. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a whole mess around interviews that I think we need to separately consider. There is a fair argument that in certain business scenarios, it is very easy to pay for an interview as a promotional thing, and thus these are far from independent and are unlikely secondary sources. But on the other side, there are absolutely earnest interviewers that are not looking to promote anything and seek out interviewees to help inform an audience, and these should be considered secondary because it is the interviewer driving the content of the interview and trying to transform the interviewee's knowledge into something more secondary (retrospective, analysis, comparison, etc.) It is all about context, though, and being aware what fields that paid-for interviews often happen against fields where these are common secondary materials, rather than grouping them all interviews into a single "primary source only" pot. But that's a broader question beyond notability. --Masem (t) 17:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I've always thought that if an article passing GNG is outcome-determinative on an interview of the subject, then GNG isn't met. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, but another aspect of the mess around interviews is that many long-form actually provide independent, reliable coverage concerning the interview subject (or something they're involved with) in the framing material published with the interview. I have seen attempts at AfD to nullify these, stating that they don't contribute to NBIO/GNG "because it's an interview", which strikes me as pretty much bass-ackwards, not to mention wikilawyery. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
That's why I say interviews being primary or secondary is very much context and topic dependent. A business leader's interview in one of those local city business papers should be suspect towards independence and likely primary, whereas if Barrons, Forbes (proper) or WSJ did the same interview, that's pretty much likely to be independent, and then you have to see if the material is transformative of the person's experience (secondary) or just reiterating that (primary). Anyone that says "interviews are flat out primary" is mistaken, but they do need careful evaluation if we are looking at notability. --Masem (t) 00:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Whether an interview is primary (the subject tells his factual details) or secondary (the subject comments on himself), is rarely important, given that an interview of the subject can never be independent of the subject. A subject talking about himself is never evidence of notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The substance of an interview is never independent of the subject, but the remainder of an article, book or documentary that is based on interviews may well contain content that does, in fact, meet WP:IND and WP:RS requirements, and would normally contribute to WP:N outside of a WP:NCORP context, Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with this. In those instances it can be very difficult to determine what's secondary and what's primary, and possibly what's independent. Can there be instances where that's fine? Perhaps, but if we're at "well this person doesn't meet GNG yet, but there's this interview," I can only see very rare instances in which we say "well let's keep the article, then." SportingFlyer T·C 09:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

When Time, or a respected documentarist, provides the reader/viewer with information as context for an interview, I see no policy-relevant reason why that information would be less reliable, or contribute less to Notability, than the same information provided by the same source without an interview attached. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's question was about what sources are appropriate to establish that the general notability guideline has been met for a given subject. In that context, I don't feel that an interview with the subject is suitable, and believe appropriate sources for the underlying reasons why that subject was chosen to be interviewed should be examined. Regarding what the interview subject says, I agree that it might be sufficiently independent and non-promotional to be used as a source, depending on context. isaacl (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
North8000, per NSPORT GNG actually must be met; the SNG is not a replacement for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify: WP:NSPORT requires a GNG pass, but that isn't true of all SNGs. Please see WP:SNG. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I wish that you were right but I disagree. In practice, meeting just the SNG specific criteria means that it stays initially and forever. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Your observation doesn't actually reflect what happens at AFD. Articles that meet various sports sub-SNGs regularly get deleted, although probably not enough, and it generally takes more than one "outsider" to express a sound policy/guideline based rationale to drown out the volume of "meets SNG" ATAs – nevertheless, they certainly do not stay forever. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The WP:GNG does not actually require two secondary sources: a close reading of the guideline only refers to "sources," and the explanatory supplement states There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. I don't think WP:WHYN is inconsistent, though I do agree the number of times a single source would be qualifying for an article would be exceptionally rare nowadays, probably along the lines of an IAR keep. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Requiring at least two sources is also consistent with WP:INDEPENDENT, which states:

    An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:
    ...
    Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.

    JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Independence is different from secondary, however. Notability already builds in the need for independent sourcing - more specifically , significant coverage from independent sources - which aligns with INDY, but that, for our purposes, could be one independent primary source and one independent and really in-depth secondary source. --Masem (t) 21:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability: Schools, residency, village or public areasEdit

Good day Wikipedians! I have a few questions regarding the "article notability" policy. Should articles on schools, residences, villages or locations that do not have secondary or tertiary reference sources be available on Wikipedia? Many such articles are tagged with stubs templates even though they do not have the resources to prove the subject can “stand alone” in Wikipedia. Have you ever had a consensus on this Wikipedia or another language that you know? Is there some sort of criterion that allows it to stay there? Some may think "maybe one day there will be a reference published in this regard given that this is a tourism location or public visit", but isn't this already "out of notability criteria"? Looking forward for all your opinions. Thanks! CyberTroopers (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

For govt-recognized villages and other habitable places, we generally allow stubs under WP:GEOLAND, as we have determined that Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. Note that this means some things like public areas do not immediately qualify under that and instead must show sourcing that meets the WP:GNG.
However, for schools, we not longer accept that every secondary-level (high school in the US, and their equivalent elsewhere) or higher-level school is necessarily notable for a standalone as a result of a 2017 RFC. Schools must instead meet WP:NORG to have a standalone article. --Masem (t) 14:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@CyberTroopers, the special rules for the notability of places is based on editors' experiences. In our experience, if you do a thorough search for sources, there is no current town on Earth that couldn't be cited amply. The same is true for government-run schools in developed countries. This doesn't necessarily hold for historical places, tiny private schools, etc., but we could probably source articles on far more places and schools than we're willing to write about. The fallacy you will need to avoid is treating "not already cited" as being the same as "no reliable sources exist in the real world". (And now you know more about this subject than 90% of registered editors. ;-)) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Notability".