Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Wikiprojects can tighten but not loosen the GNG?

Why? I see Masem mentioning it above. It's not mandated by WP:V or any other policies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC) And if it's because you say so, you don't have to do a tl;dr when that's what you mean. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WProject don't have to do anything to the GNG if they don't want to. But any such restrictions on the GNG should be line with other policies and guidelines. For example, WP:VG has put in place a restriction on detailed game content articles (WP:GAMEGUIDE); while, say, lists of weapons or characters can be shown to be "notable" through several sources, commonly gameplay guides, its been determined that such content is not appropriate partially due to WP:NOT#GUIDE, partially due to the fact that most often these sources are borderline secondary (they will often detail and assess such weapons, for example, but again, within the context of the game, and not with respect to all gaming), and that that in general such content is not appropriate for the general reader. Note that doesn't outright prevent articles on truly notable game weapons (gravity gun for one), just the type that is routine coverage for any video game. I see no problem with other WProjects determining how articles under their scope that may pass notability guidelines can be discouraged by their own members if they are following appropriate interpretation of other policies. (That said, a WProject that aggressive limits what they call notable is probably going too far.)

The opposite way, however, expanding beyond the GNG, is not appropriate for WProjects to undertake. The only places where such widening should be even considered are the Wikipedia-wide sub-notability guidelines (SNGs) and that requires consensus before changing. WProjects can works towards changing those, however, if they feel they need it. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you could have just said "becuase that's the way I like it". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I'm pointing out there's practical examples where this occurs. (Yes, I've no idea with the concept, either). --MASEM (t) 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that statement in practice. WikiProjects are a lower level of consensus--when guidelines conflict, the projectwide policies and guidelines take precedence. I remember the WP:POTTER people had some content in their style guide which I pointed out contradicted a guideline, and it was removed. Notability is slightly different, but given the scale of its impact I would think that such an exception should be listed as a SNG like others and discussed widely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, these articles nominally meet some or all of our policies, but we still don't want them", theoretically backed by some rationale that has consensus. The opposite is much harder to attain at anything but the most local consensus, i.e. AfD, because the next logical step from "We want articles that don't meet policy X" is "Well then the policy is wrong". Nifboy (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Document in detail why article has notability concerns before adding notability tag to an article

I propose the following change to this article:

Change

"Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors."

to

"Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors after documenting your notability concern in detail on the articles discussion page."

It is easy to just put the notability tag on any article. However, notability is a difficult concept that is not objective WP:NOPE. It would be very helpful if people would document in detail why article has notability concerns before adding notability tag to an article.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be easy to put the tag on an article. There is no need to create more work for people tagging articles. Why would someone tagging Beverley Hills Primary School need to go to the talk page and add some explanation there? You should explain it when asked/challenged, but not by default when it is often painfully obvious that the article as it stands has serious problems. The link to the notability guidelines in the tag cntains all the "detailed explanation" anyone needs in most cases. Fram (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fram. WP:BEFORE is for deletion. If people disagree with a tag, it's easy enough to remove with a good summary or discuss. ^Bongo_matic 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to comment on notability is a difficult concept that is not objective. The identification of a subject as being the first, biggest, last, smallest, top 10, etc. in a class is objective. Finding significant coverage in secondary sources is objective. There's a lot of the process of determining if a subject merits an article in the Wikipedia which is objective. The final judgment call to make is on a marginal subject is done performed by a consensus of editors who ought to be applying GNG and SNG in a neutral way. I don't like drive-by tagging but there's no reason to consider a notability tag to be a special case. patsw (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the wording could be changed, though maybe the language doesn't need to be as strong as Citizen is suggesting. I see a lot of tags in general for which it's not obvious (at least to me) what they're talking about, plus some tags get left behind even after the issue they're pointing out has been resolved. This looks like more a general wikiquette issue though. In some cases it might really be obvious, as when there has been no attempt to establish notability at all, but sometimes it might require explanation, as when there are references cited but they don't conform to the finer points of WP:BLP. Maybe the passage could read something like

"Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors and, if common sense deems it necessary, document your notability concern in detail on the articles discussion page."

Maybe it kind of goes without saying or maybe there could just be a link to an existing tagging politeness guideline (WP:TAGANDRUN?). I'm not sure, but I do think Citizen has a valid point.--RDBury (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CCLEANUP might apply.--RDBury (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my original proposed wording was too strong. Here is a weaker version without the word detailed: "Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors and document your notability concern on the articles discussion page." I can't ever see a reason to add a {{notability}} tag on the article without writing a short explaination. Notability is a difficult concept that is not objective WP:NOPE.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is an even better version: "Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors and document your notability concern on the articles discussion page. It is important that you relate your notability concern to the content and subject of the specific article. This will serve two purposes: 1) It will be easier to determine when the {{notability}} tag can be removed. 2) It will be easier for Wikipedia editors to understand exactly what needs to be done to fix the notability issue with the article."Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RDBury, I believe there is a real need for some sort of tagging politeness guideline in Wikipedia (WP:TAGANDRUN?). A lot of the material for this new guideline is already in WP:ATA. Drive-by tagging of articles without leaving any explanation has become all to common. For more experienced Wikipedia users it is more difficult to respond without understanding why the tag was added and it makes it difficult to know when it is OK to remove the tag. For new Wikipeidia users this type of drive-by tagging is very unwelcoming and sometimes borders on Wikipedia article vandalism and I believe is a violation of WP:DONTBITE. Here is a quote from WP:DONTBITE: "The principle "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of not biting and assuming good faith. You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them." Maybe there should a tag that could be added that asks the drive-by tagger to document their concern.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging an article <> attacking an editor. If we are no longer allowed to criticize an article because it may offend an editor, then we are in serious trouble. This has nothing to do with BITE and AGF: if I tag an article for notability problems (or wikification, lack of sources,, or even prod or AfD it), then I don't make a statement about the editor, only about the article. Fram (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you keep tagging articles. We need this. I just hope you don't do drive-by tagging (especially for new users.) Just document your notability concern on the articles discussion page and in my opinion, it is important that you relate your notability concern to the content and subject of the specific article.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like part of the advantage of using tags is they are crafted to use neutral language and therefore avoid attacking the editor. Of course that benefit could be obviated if the person adding the tag accompanies it with a nasty note in the talk page. Instead of have a new tag to mark mysterious tags, I think it would be better to just remove the offending tag with a note that it wasn't clear what the concern was. The tag can always be added back and with an explanation this time. I've been thinking about the idea of having this be a policy, assuming it's not one already and I couldn't find it. Per WP:Instruction creep, three conditions should be satisfied. First, that there is a documented problem. Some data should be collected to see if drive-by tagging is all that common. Second, that the instruction would solve the problem. It this case I think it should be more of a suggestion but it help people feel more empowered to remove mysterious or unhelpful tags if they find them. Third, that the instruction will not have undesired side-effect. As has been pointed out, one negative side effect would be to reduce the number of helpful tags placed in articles. Another possible side effect might be tagging versions of edit wars. I think these could be handled by wording it as a suggestion rather than a fixed rule, and having admonitions to follow the normal edit war policies. Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems already has a lot of this but it currently has essay status.--RDBury (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, notability is a relatively simple concept. And we do indeed use objective criteria when determining notability. Placing a tag is enough. If someone has a question as to why it was placed, they can ask. But it is usually pretty obvious. Dlabtot (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Rarely have I read an essay that I more completely disagree with than WP:NOPE. I'd say it is pretty much wrong on every point. Dlabtot (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there isn't a situation {{notability}} would be preferred over {{unreferenced}} plus a polite note on the editor's page that, hey, if there are no sources it stands a good chance of going up for AfD. Nifboy (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not true; many pages have some sources (homepage, myspace, fora, ...), sometimes even to reliable sources, but still fail to indicate how the subject is notable. See e.g. Ad feminam, an article that is sourced, but is correctly tagged for potential notability problems (merging with ad hominem would be the obvious solution in this case). Fram (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Neologism}}, {{Original research}}, or even something like {{quotefarm}} or {{trivia}} would all be preferable to the notability tag in that instance. Peoples' reaction to the notability tag is to throw sources at the article and see what sticks. The tag does nothing to explain why the sources are not the "right" sources. Nifboy (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I just had occasion to add a notability tag yesterday and I've got to say that the issue was not obvious at all. Of the four references, three supported facts in the article but did not mention the subject, and the fourth was not an independent source. All that had to be explained in the talk page in order for the tag to make any sense. I had actually seen the article several times before but it took careful reading of the article and an investigation of the references before the notability issues were apparent. There are some cases where no attempt has been made to establish notability, but these pages get (or at least should be) marked for deletion rather than get a cleanup tag. And if an attempt has been made then it would probably be helpful for the person adding the tag to explain why it is insufficient.--RDBury (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of adding to the tag soup, maybe we need a {{irreleventsources}} tag? Nifboy (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting the tag on should be easy and not require detailing reasons, though it'd be helpful if people did do it when it isn't obvious. DreamGuy (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it shouldn't require anyone to give a reason. However, if no reason is given on the talk page, it should be just as easy to remove it.陣内_Jinnai 01:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One of these days we're going to put editor tags on the talk page, and reader tags on the article. Until then, may as well keep it simple, even if 99.9999% of readers have no idea what the notability tag means, and don't follow any of its links. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New subject-specific guidelines: Merits

If there is a subject-specific guideline for Criminal acts, isn't it logical there is one on Merits as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How would it help? Is there some widespread dispute that a specific notability guideline would resolve? As much as it seems to the contrary, we don't care to have rules for the sake of having rules. Nifboy (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable evidence

I've reverted this change made by User:Gavin.collins in April. I couldn't find any discussion of the changes in the archives, and I find some of the language used in the rewrite troubling. For example, I don't think it is true that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, it's far more nuanced than that, since we aren't a collection of indiscriminate information. I also can't find any evidence of consensus for the addition of the text on inherited notability, the best discussion I can find in the archives indicates a lack of consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 33#Notability is not inherited as well as only 57% support in Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. The last sentence I don't understand. Hiding T 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 33#Notability is not inherited ? Come on Hiding, you can read the discussion - you basically fabricating objections. The discussion continued, and includes the discussion First draft of WP:NOTINHERITED. I am not sure what you are tyring to achieve. If you object to one or more aspects of this section, do say why and what you consider to be the alternative. I think you know that WP:NOTINHERITED has widespread consensus for some time now. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. No Gavin, if you read the discussion, you'll notice that even at the end of the debate comments such as "But then, I think "never inherited" is not only inaccurate, but unclear". If you read the whole debate, the only person who supports it is yourself. There's seven people in that debate, and six oppose the text you proposed. How you can claim that as consensus is beyond me. What I am trying to achieve is the reflection of consensus in our guidance. And as you have failed to address the concerns I raised, instead relying on ad hominem attacks, I've restored teh long-standing text until you can point to a consensus discussion and answer the concerns raised:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability is demonstrably false per WP:NOT
• There is no current consensus that notability is NOT inherited
• The last sentence makes no sense at all

Please take the time to address these points rather than revert to your preferred version, a version added against consensus as demonstrated n the link you provide yourself, Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_33#First_draft_of_WP:NOTINHERITED. Hiding T 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that the counter arguments they made did not stand up to examination. All of the examples of inherited notability could not be supported by any evidence. As regards your other questions, I am not sure why you are taking such a contrarian view:

1. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability is demonstrably false" runs counter to WP:V. If you can be me an example of where this does not hold, the more the better.
2. WP:NOTINHERITED has been the consensus for a long time now. Statements that notability can be inhertited, or proven without evenidence have turned out to be thinly disgusied examples of subjective importance. All the SNG's require verifiable evidence of notability. Again, if you can be me an example of where this does not hold, bring it on.
3. Explain why you think the last sentence makes no sense.

I don't know why you are raising these issues again, Hiding, but I suspect it is something to do with your repeated attempts to build exemptions for fictional characters from the notability guideline at WP:FICT, and relpace it with inclusion criteria based on subjective importance. Why not give it a rest? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear how you think you can disregard the objections of six people. Please show me where in our policies you have been afforded that ability. Their arguments don't even say what you allege they say. All the participants bar yourself rejected your amendments to the text for balanced reasons, namely that they didn't clarify the situation, nor were they supported by consensus. You were even pointed to an RFC where it was seen that the idea had support in the mid 50s, at 57 %, below what we traditionally value as a rough consensus, being two thirds. How you ignored all of that I am completely unclear.

1. You need to re-read my objection, since you have not quoted it correctly. I can not defend a point I have not made. At the moment you have this guidance go further than WP:NOT by saying the only consideration for inclusion is verifiability. This conflicts with such a vast number of policies I can;t see why we need to discuss the point. The language you have used is poor, whereas the original version of the section is descriptive and succinct.
2. No it hasn't. You seem to have your own definition of what "inherited notability" may be, but since three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances. And since the current text doesn't negate the need for verifiable evidence, I don;t even understand why you claim it does.
3. "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation." What is a formatting and display purpose? Why does this not imply inherited notability? Why might it appear to do so? What us often accepted, the implication or the article? In essence, what is it referring to?

I've never raised any issue regarding this text before. I have no desire to build inclusion criteria based on subjective importance, and don't understand why you continually resort to ad hominem attacks. It would be good wiki-quette to refrain from making them and simply focus on the discussion at hand. Hiding T 23:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, simply making a generalisation that there is 57% for or against a policy is neither here nor there, and cannot be proved or disproved, for how can you measure such things? Don't hide behind consensus: if you yourself have an objection to this section, just say so and say what it is. If you have an objection to the text, please state what your specific objections are instead of removing it without discussion. Please restore the orginal text which reads as follows:

Notability requires verifiable evidence The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim. Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline.

Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation.

For your information, this section takes much of ideas from WP:NOTINHERITED. It is designed to explain why notability cannot be passed from one topic to another; to demonstrate that a topic is notable requies verifiable evidence.
A useful example to consider is the central character, Jamie Graham, from the book Empire of the Sun written by J.G. Ballard. As a little boy, he was seperated from his parents in war-torn Shanghai during the Japanese invasion. The book was adapted for the screen by Ballard and Tom Stoppard, and the film Empire of the Sun was directed by Steven Spielberg, with Christian Bale playing Jamie. Its a long time since I have seen the film in the cinema, but I do remember a spectacular scene when the pilot of a P-51 Mustang waves to Jamie Graham. If no one has written about the character from a such memorable film which portrays dramatic historical events, directed by a notable director, acted by a notable actor and written by notable authors, why has Jamie Graham not inherited any notabilty? To be honest, I can't think of an example which demonstrates this issue more clearly: if there is no coverage of a topic in reliable secondary sources, then how can notability be proven in a way that is verifiable? I don't see that it can, but this is just one specific instance where it is the work itself, not a character or a specific scene, that is notable.
I think this section provides very useful guidance, and I don't understand why it should be removed at all, because proposals to make notability inheritable have shown to be unworkable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think you'll find I have done exactly as you asked. I've restored the original text of the section, and I've demonstrated what is wrong with your proposed amendments. The whole thrust of your text is flawed from start to finish as stated above and in the debates linked. In actuality the proposal directly contradicts WP:NOTINHERITED. Your example of Jamie Graham is also a horrendously bad one, since he is J.G. Ballard. However you do shine a light on inherited notability and how it works with Empire of the Sun, an article which looks to meet the fifth criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books), a notability guideline which conflicts with your proposed text. Since your proposed text conflicts with consensus, guidance and the way we do things, I think it is best left on the shelf. And this is my last time of asking for you to desist from ad hominem attacks. A generalisation about 57% is a very different beast to one documented through a wiki-link, and previously accepted by yourself as demonstrated in your participation at Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise: "it does not invalidate Masem's view that "there's allowance for some non-notable spinouts". Hiding T 11:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Although we have been through this debate before under the section First draft of WP:NOTINHERITED, I understand you still object to having refernce to a section along the lines that notability is not inherited in this guideline, even though this is clearly a notability issue. Is that becuase you believe that notability can be inherited, and if so, in what circumstances? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough about this, so I'll clarify. Wikipedia guidance currently states that inherited notability is allowed in exceptional cases. Can you demonstrate consensus for changing those guidelines or explain how you attempt to solve the fact that this proposal contradicts current guidance? Hiding T 12:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not been clear. I don't think it says that notability can be inherited anywhere, especially not in WP:NOTINHERITED, which is the consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you state that the text at WP:NOTINHERITED represents the consensus, and since the text there clearly states that "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances" and also opens by stating "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group" (my emphasis), you'll have to explain your assertion that you "don't think it says that notability can be inherited anywhere, especially not in WP:NOTINHERITED". Hiding T 12:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the SNG's claim to allow for inherited notability. Certainly none of them say that notability can be inherited, and all of them say that claims of notability must be backed up by verifable evidence. If a claim of notability has to backed up by evidence, then it is not inherited. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The SNGs are not requiring evidence of notability, they are requiring evidence that the topic is appropriate associated with another topic that has already shown to be notable. (A movie received a notable award just needs to be supported by evidence that the award was given to that movie, not that the movie was notable). --MASEM (t) 13:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I say below Masem, I don't think we should move on to debating this until Gavin concedes the point below. Otherwise we can't be sure we are all on the same page. I think it is very important to be clear that Gavin erred when he stated "I don't think it says that notability can be inherited anywhere, especially not in WP:NOTINHERITED, which is the consensus." If there is no recognition of this fact, it will be very hard tomove forwards in good faith, because we may find ourselves returning again to this point. Hiding T 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You now seem to be arguing something entirely different. Before we move the debate on, could we just clarify that you agree that WP:NOTINHERITED states that "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances", in spite of you asserting it states no such thing. There's little point moving the debate on until we can find common ground on which to sit. A simple yes, it does say that will suffice, thanks. Hiding T 13:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... According to WP:FILM winning a notable award is considered "verification" that a film is notable. That isn't an inheritance issue. An inheritance issue would be something like claiming an actor that appeared in the film is notable because the movie won an award for Best Special Effects. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The book, film, etc. notability guidelines are a bit lacking in examples, but WP:BIO has many many cases of inheritance (eg, athletes that play for pro teams, etc.) of the type above. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (films): "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Hiding T 13:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Hiding T 13:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (music):

1. "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."
2. "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition."
3. "Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time."
4. "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria."
5. "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre." Hiding T 13:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people): "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" Hiding T 13:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOVIE says "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a film meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources", while WP:MUSIC says that "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true". These requirements effectively mean that a claim to inherited notability must be backed up with evidence in any case.
In this regard, WP:BIO is little different, although the route to this is more roundabout: its says that certain types of people (e.g. professional athletes) are notable, but in order to identify them as such, the article would have to meet the GNG in any case, in order to meet the additional sourcing requirements of WP:BLP and WP:ONEVENT. WP:BIO also goes on to rule out inherited notability in its Invalid criteria section, so once again, evidence is required.
I think you will find that either directly or indirectly, WP:GNG is the underlying requirement to establish notability. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline, which is why I think the above text needs to be restored. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• You've claimed that "If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline", which isn't actually the case. The case is that if a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it satisfies the general notability guideline or "the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines". The part in quotes is a direct quote from this page. Also, can you acknowledge that you were mistaken to assert that "I don't think it says that notability can be inherited anywhere, especially not in WP:NOTINHERITED, which is the consensus." Now I think we all agree that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." Which is what this page says. So there's not really any need to go any further, and start adding text which doesn't appear to make sense, contradicts the text it supposedly is based upon, and contradicts current guidance. Glad we have that solved. Hiding T 15:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On this point, Hiding, you are mistaken: it is the case that verifiable evidence that independently satisfies the general notability guideline is not required because all thes all the SNGs do require it, either directly or indirectly. The point of this guidance is that you can't claim that a topic is notable by reference to published peer recognition or other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines without verifiable evidence. The classic example is that all claims that notability is inherited has to backed up by meeting the GNG, in which case the topic is independently satisfies the general notability guideline in any case.
At the center of this guidance is that inherited notability cannot be used as an excuse to create article topics without meeting WP:GNG, because the burden to demonstrate that a topic is notable falls on the editor to do so when they add or restore coverage of a topic, i.e. a topic does not inherit notability just because an editor says it does. In the example of Jamie Graham given above, it would be easy to assume that the character inherits notability, but unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources about him, then this is an article topic that does not meet the requiremens to the GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please see the entire section at Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability and the following text at Wikipedia:Notability (music): "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true." This conflicts with your view that "all the SNGs do require" "verifiable evidence that it satisfies the general notability guideline". I'm not sure why we are even discussing the idea that "a topic does not inherit notability just because an editor says it does", given that this page and all other notability guidance make it clear that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." Can you also acknowledge that you were mistaken to assert that "I don't think it says that notability can be inherited anywhere, especially not in WP:NOTINHERITED, which is the consensus." I'm glad we have agreed that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability", and that the current guidance is therefore enough to guard against the idea that "a topic does not inherit notability just because an editor says it does". Best, Hiding T 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the SNGs say that verifable evidence of notability is required, in what sense does this conflict with my view that "all the SNGs do require" "verifiable evidence? Apologies if I am not following you, Hiding. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

At least to me, what you are asking for is that the verifiable evidence be the same secondary sources that GNG requires, whereas, for at least myself but I also believe where Hiding is coming from, these simply require "verifiable evidence" which can include primary sources from reliable organizations (eg. a page on the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that lists the winners of the year's Oscars is sufficient evidence for winning an award via WP:NF). --MASEM (t) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not really work like that. If Masem wins "Employee of the Week" at his local Walmart, that does not make him notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why these assert that the award has to have demonstrated notablility before that can be made. (NOT the recipient, however). --MASEM (t) 20:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem has it. Gavin, can you clarify that you agree that this page states "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines"? That would mean we are all on the same page, because if we all accept the page says that, we all agree. Hiding T 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't know if Walmart has an employee of the month program. But what you are proposing is, that if it did, and the award was notable, then the receipients would inherit the notability of the award. I don't see how this can work myself, and I don't see how it could be applied to Wikipedia, which is why WP:NOTINHERITED is the consensus and needs to be reflected in this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very interesting straw man argument, and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Walmart company awards are not and are never likely to be notable, and WP:MUSIC already allows that people nominated for a Grammy are presumed to be notable. I've tried to be as direct as possible to ensure a smooth debate in line with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIV and WP:AGF, but as you have avoided direct questions at every turn, and since this page states "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines" I think we can see what the consensus is. Masem, what do you think about the current text at WP:INHERITED? I'm not sure what it means when it says "a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes though. Hiding T 10:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The so called consensus between you and Masem is one thing, but there is no evidence to support the idea that notability can be inherited - certainly none of the SNGs say it can be inherited. Its been a bone of contention between myself and Masem for a long time, as he has favoured the automatic inlcusion of spinoff articles on the basis of inherited notability, which can't be supported by Wikipedia's content polices. Compliance with WP:GNG is needed to write encyclopedic articles, and trying to avoid this by asserting that notability can be inherited is just an attempt to construct an exemption from GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please desist from the ad hominem attacks and actually address the content of our guidelines. They have been quoted to you above on numerous occasions. As has been explained, it is not the fact that "Compliance with WP:GNG is needed to write encyclopedic articles". This is stated on Wikipedia:Notability where it categorically states that "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines". I will make this text bold on the page so that it is harder to miss. Unless you acknowledge points like this Gavin, it is impossible to actually converse with you. We can't continually rehash the same argument, and you can't in all good faith continually ignore the same evidence presented before you time and time again. Hiding T 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Alas, it takes more than one or two editors to reach consensus from a Wikipedia perspective because there exists a framework of policies and guidelines already in existence. For you and me both it is pointless to claim to represent the consensus viewpoint, when we each have different views which are our own.
I don't claim to have a monopoly over this issue, but the wording shown above was created after several long and detailed discussion with the objective of bringing the guidance contained in WP:NOTINHERITED into this guideline. The supposed inheritence of notability is a contraversial area because it is not possible to provide evidence that notability can he inherited at all: after all, if a topic has not been "noted" then by defintion it can't be notable per se; if the emperor has no clothes, then saying that he does won't reduce his lack of clothing. Similarly asserting that a topic is notable because it is related in some way to another topic is shown to be a fallacy by WP:NOTINHERITED.
Reading selected passages from the SNGs might lead you to believe that notability can be inherited, but it can't. In practise, all of the SNG's require verifiable evidence of notability, which basically means that notability can't be transfered between topics by asserting that it can. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The GNG, NOTINHERITED, or most other things relating to notability are not absolutes. They are not black and white areas. There's a reason WP:N is not policy , and that is because there are large areas where common sense and consensus override what appears to be lack of notability from the GNG. In the cases of the SNGs, sure its impossible to prove that for every single possible case of where a topic X may be notable due to meeting criteria Y, we have used consensus to determine that they hold by example, not absolution proof: that for most topics that meet criteria Y that the topic is likely going to be notable. It is a high standard and requires WP-wide consensus to add new ones, but it is a completely fair one to work alongside the GNG. That's why there's usually tight qualifications on what criteria Y is: winning any award is not notable in of itself, but winning a notable award in certain fields certainly is, and thus notability of its recipient is appropriately inherited. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim to represent the consensus viewpoint. I'm actually quoting the actual guidelines, which do represent consensus. You are merely espousing your opinion, which doesn't. And by continuing to do so in the face of repeated directions to and quotations from those guidelines you are acting in a manner which hinders good faith attempts to build consensus. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, no-one has argued that there be no verifiable evidence of notability. What appears to be the problem is your unwillingness to concede, despite the evidence, that:

1. WP:NOTINHERITED states: "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances"
2. Wikipedia:Notability states: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines"
3. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states: "A musician or ensemble may be notable if it has won or been nominated for a major music award"

Given your refusal to acknowledge these statements, despite the many instances where you have been asked to do so, and instead continue in ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments, I have no choice but to open an RFC on your behaviour, since it appears to be wilfully obstructive. Hiding T 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED does not state that "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances". Where does it say that? Secondly, a topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines, but all of those guidelines require verifiable evidence, thereby nuliifing the presumtion of inherited notability. Lastly if a musician has won a major music award, then you must provide verifiable evidence that they have done so. I acknlowledge all of these statements, but your selective interpretation of them does not show that notability can be inhertited. If a topic has not been actually been "noted" then by defintion it can't be notable per se, and even if you assert it is closely related to another topic, that does not change this fact. Notability is not inherited downwards, upwards, from side to side or in any other position you care to think of. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, if you follow the link to WP:NOTINHERITED and, depending on browser, run a search on the page (CTRL+F) using the text three of you will soon see the relevant text. Once you have done that, I will be happy to debate the rest of your mistaken assertions, such as the fact that you have also overlooked the definition at WP:NOTINHERITED, which states "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." If you note their emphasis, they are not ruling anything out categorically, something you do, for reasons I am unable to fathom. Assuming you wish to reach a consensus and reflect current practises, of course. Hiding T 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the phrase now where it says "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances", but it is a recent addition, or at least it introduced since I last edited that page. Since none of the SNGs allow inherited notability anyway, it seems to me to a contraversial statement, if not a misleading one, since it conflicts with the rest of WP:NOTINHERITED. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not true Gavin, if you check the history you'll see there was a phrase very similar, [1] says "two of the notability guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances" when you last edited. And I can't see how November of 2007 qualfies as recent. And since it doesn't conflict with the rest of WP:NOTINHERITED but actually supports it, seeing as the page states "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group", and given we've already agreed that the SNG's allow inherited notability anyway, as you can see where you state that you concur that "a topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines". The point you seem to want to keep arguing, over and over ad nauseum is an argument no-one else is interested in. You want to point out that notability requires verifiable evidence. But everyone's already agreed that already. Now, in the interests of reaching a good faith consensus, can you either move on to make another point or please find something else to do with your time, as you are not actually being constructive here. I appreciate you have your own little definitions of certain terms, but to help facilitate debate it is far better to use Wikipedia's own definitions. Consensus on Wikipedia is that notability can be inherited if there is verifiable evidence to support the claim. So if we can verify that an author is so culturally important that he forms a part of the national curriculum, all works by that author are considered notable. This criterion has a verifiable element and an inherited element, so we are all right that notability requires verifiable evidence, but anyone wishing to argue notabiliuty is never inherited on Wikipedia is actually arguing against consensus, guidance and practise. To do so after the editor has been disabused of the misconception is to act in a disruptive manner, since it hinders good faith efforts to reach consensus. Best regards, Hiding T 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if that's true, that page is at most an essay, a point of view supported by many, but not all, members, just like WP:Notability and fiction is an essay.陣内_Jinnai 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is an essay, but Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is often cited and contains much useful guidance, which is why the wording (highlighted in yellow, above) was introduced. It seems to me that there is so much misunderstanding about the idea that notability can be inherited, that it would be sensible to discuss the issue within the context of this guideline, which is why I would like to see the wording restored. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But since the wording you wish to introduce contradicts current guidance and consensus and doesn't make sense, and you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of the consensus policy, notability guidance or Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I can't see any point in continued discussion of your proposed text. I agree we could do better with the text in this page, but my suggestion would be to think about summarising what is at WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP rather than attempting to contradict them. Hiding T 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed make sense, for how can a topic be deemed to be notable if it has not actually been "noted"? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the SNG criteria are there to state exceptional cases where a topic will likely to be "noted" should it have an inherited relation with another, already notable topic; the lack of existing notability for the new topic may similar due to its age, the types and difficulty of finding the right sources, and similar causes that make writing a fuller article difficult but not impossible. And it should be pointed out this is not WP:CRYSTAL; the SNGs are vetted to ensure that if a SNG criteria is met for inherited notability, then only a fraction of those topics that actually will actually fail to produce appropriate sources over time to write an encyclopedic article about it; the near-majority of topics will actually developed into appropriate encyclopedic articles. That's why the SNGs are the exceptions talked about in NOTINHERITED; you can't just throw a topic and claim inherience against another, there needs to be a good deal of WP-wide discussion to allow for that. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not notability you are talking about, that is inclusion on the grounds of subjective importance. If you say that every athlete should should have their own standalone article, that has nothing to do with notability, that is just a matter of personal opinion. The point of this guideline is that notability requires verifiable evidence by definition (if a topic has "noted" then it is notable), and simply asserting that will be notable or might be notable falls short of the requirements of WP:GNG for the purpose of this guideline.
The point I am trying to make here is that not every athlete will be notable, and simply asserting that notability can be inherited does not plug that gap. If an SNG says all athletes are should have their standalone article, then that is a matter of subjective importance which cannot be verified. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We as in Wikipedias are who decides what is notable; this is our collective work and thus make it what we want it to be, barring the few limitations placed on by the mission and Foundation edicts (BLP and NFC). If consensus agrees that every professional athlete is notable because of their connection to a notable sport, then every professional athlete is notable (Note: we already do have this per WP:ATHLETE). WP is not a bureaucracy, it is not black or white, but instead it uses guidelines and polices based on practice of the people that actually develop it. We are free to define what we consider notable (which goes back to the whole argument that the English language definition of the word vs the WP definition are at odds). Of course, we have to be careful that what we call notable is still going to end up as a worthwhile article, which is why we don't include every whim of what people want, and why the SNGs are vetted to include criteria that will produce minimal false positives. But importantly, there is nothing beyond ourselves that limit what we call notable. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you're fighting the wrong fight. Look at what Gavin has said. He stated "If you say that every athlete should should have their own standalone article". Nobody here has advanced that position. Gavin is making straw men arguments for reasons I can not fathom. Note Gavin also states "inclusion on the grounds of subjective importance", even though we're discussing existing guidance and have rebutted this numerous times by pointing out that any claim of notability requires verifiable evidence to support the claim. I can't work out whether to start a third RFC against Gavin or take it all to arbitration. The best thing we can do for now is ignore Gavin, as by now I think we can demonstrate Gavin has no interest in making a good faith effort to reach a consensus. Hiding T 09:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about me per se, but whether inherited notability exists, if at all. We know that some of the SNG's have sections in which subjects like professional athletes get special mention, but whether or not notability is inherited is not explicitly asserted. There is also an intellectual flaw associated with special treatment for professional athletes: it is just not possible to write a balanced encyclopedic article about professional athlete if there is a complete absence of coverage altogether, and in this case the argument that all athletes are notable falls down. In any case, all of SNG's require verifiable evidence, which effectively means that the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG is not displaced WP:ATHLETE; the idea that notability can be inherited is based on a very selective reading of this guideline.
The issue now is whether notability can be deemed to be inherited at all. I am confident that we have an RFC on this issue, then we can settle this point and open this discussion to wider comment. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since we all agree that all of the SNG's require verifiable evidence, I have no idea why we are still debating this issue. Can you explain where we differ, and therefore why an RFC is needed? Hiding T 12:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The section highlighted in yellow above supports this premise. The only reason why it has been removed is because you are asserting, as I understand it, that notability can be inherited. My point is that it is not possible to assert that notability can be inherited and that notability requires verfiable evidence. The are mutually exclusive, and this is what we need to get broader consensus on. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the only reason I removed it is because I am asserting that notability can be inherited, then you need to re-read the debate. If you believe "it is not possible to assert that notability can be inherited and that notability requires verfiable evidence" you also need to re-read the debate or we need to end the argument, because myself and Masem have already demonstrated the falseness of that belief. It may work for a definition of "notability can be inherited", but it doesn;t work for the definition we use on Wikipedia, and which even you have admitted has consensus. I really don;t see how there is room for further discussion on this issue, but I feel certain you will find some. Please don't ask me to explain myself again, however. That would create a circular argument. Hiding T 11:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

My understanding is that notability cannot be inherited, because in order for an topic to be presumed to be notable, the article topic itself must actually have been "noted", rather than be presumed notable by some sort of connection or relationship with a sperate topic or group of topics.

For example, the character Jamie Graham from the book Empire of the Sun by the author J.G. Ballard was played by the actor Christian Bale in the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. It would be not difficult to argue that the character Jamie Graham inherits notability from his association with all of these other notable topics.

There is a major flaw to this argument: when it is argued that a topic "inherits" notability, we are not talking about notability at all. The arguement for its inclusion as a standalone article on the basis of association with another topic is actually an assertion of subjective importance, e.g. It is a matter of opinion that this character should have his own standalone article, because of its association with other (more notable) topics.

Despite these concerns, there are many instances in Wikipedia guidelines where the presumption of notability can be inherited is implicit. Guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE do not explicity require verifiable evidence of notability (although the overarching guideline WP:BIO does). Some editors believe that this is a clear indication notability can be inherited.

I think we need to have an RFC on whether notability can be inherited at all to clarify this issue. There have been similar RFC's before, e.g. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, but the issue of inherited notability was only addressed indirectly. What is need now is some form of wording that we can all agree on which can be the subject of an RFC in which this issue can be open this discussion by a wider audience. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see that an RFC is needed. Point by point rebuttal:

1. WP:NOTINHERITED already states: "three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances"
2. Inherited notability can be noted: for example all oscar winners are noted. Some, however, are covered in reliable sources more than others. Such criteria ensure that our coverage of such content will be complete
3. This guidelines allow for notability to be conferred where there is verifiable evidence that such a criterion is met. See for example:
   1. Wikipedia:Notability (books): The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.
   2. Wikipedia:Notability (music): Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
   3. Wikipedia:Notability (films): The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
   4. Wikipedia:Notability (people): People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
   5. Wikipedia:Notability (people): People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships
   6. Wikipedia:Notability (people): The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The character Jamie Graham is a bad example, since the character is actually JG Ballard and so the article already exists
5. This doesn't discuss subjective criteria but objective criteria that must be verifiably met

• If we do have an RFC, I don't think this is the question to pose, because you are limiting the definition of whether notability is inherited to whether an editor's subjective opinion alone defines notability on Wikipedia. As has already been discussed above, no-one wants to see an editor's subjective opinion alone define notability on Wikipedia. If that is your question, by all means ask it, but in a neutral manner. Ask the question directly. If you want to ask whether notability requires verifiable evidence, that is a separate question as well, and is another one we already agree on on this talk page. So I can't understand why you wish to ask two questions upon which we already agree, nor why you are attempting to cloud the issue by asking a leading question. What I would much rather prefer is if we could actually discuss some wording to add to this page instead of constantly rehashing this issue. Hiding T 12:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I note your points Hiding, and if we do agree that an RFC is the best way forward, then I hope the wording fairly reflects both your views and mine. I will give this some thought and make a proposal on wording soon, but I won't do so without obtaining agreement first. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we run the RFC based on the following text:

The term "Notability" is not a reflection of a topic's subjective importance or its relationship with other topics, its overarching classification or category. For an article topic to be notable, it has actually to have been "noted" in in the sense that it has been the subject of published commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent.

For this reason, Notability cannot be inherited because every assertion that an article topic is notable must be substantiated by veriable evidence in accordance with the general notability guideline.

Some topic categories, such as professional athletes are presumed to be notable by subject-specific notability guidelines; however, since these SNG's only support the presumption that a topic is notable if it is supported by verifiable evidence, this does not support the idea that notability can be inherited per se.

Let me know if you have an wish to amend this wording. I understand that not everyone will agree with the content or form of wording, but the key point is that we should be putting foward all of the issues for discussion, not just those we agree with. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are in favor of this RFC based upon the above text, what is the actual impact?

• What bad articles now in the Wikipedia could it have prevented, were it in effect?
• What good articles were excluded from the Wikipedia, because it was not in effect?

The RFC based upon the above text appears to me to be a slightly obfuscated converse of the WP:GNG ("subjects covered by reliable sources can be articles") as "subjects not covered by reliable sources cannot be articles" The example given above Jamie Graham (character) should not be the basis for the proposal, there already is WP:Notability (fiction) as a proposal, perhaps that should get more attention. patsw (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need an RFC, because we haven't as yet identified an area of disagreement. I think it would be wise to work out first where we disagree. I'm not sure how we can ask for clarification until we are sure we have a dispute. If you wish to challenge text at another guideline, I don't think this page is the correct place to do so, and I would not feel comfortable discussing such an issue here. And the Jamie Graham example should be dropped, given that the character is based on J.G. Ballard. Might I suggest we drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass now? Hiding T 10:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a dispute, in the sense that deleted a section of this guideline so that it is now silent about inheritied notability, as Hiding's tweak shows. It is unfair that Hiding should characterise this discusion as "flogging a dead horse", particularly when it was Hiding's amendment was done with canvassing support for it in the first place.
It is now time to bring this issue forward for wider discussion. I am happy to run an RFC on the original wording, but I think it is justified as there is a clear divergence on whether or not it is notability can be inherited in the absense of veriable evidence.
As regards the fictional character Jamie Graham, he is indeed based on the author himself, but that does not diminish the arguement that characters do not inherit notability by association. For all I know, there may well exist sources to show that the character is independently notable. However, I am not suggesting this illustration be included in the RFC, in which other editors may wish to put forward their own analogies.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's an interesting characterisation of the chain of events. You seem to have left out the fact that you added the text despite seven people disagreeing with the addition and one person (yourself) agreeing with it. But patsw makes an incredibly pertinent point: why does the page need to be vocal on the issue of "inherited notability". Isn't the wider question actually whether there needs to be "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability"? To which this page already speaks. So do you wish to see that text removed, or are you in agreement with it? Hiding T 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already voiced my disagreement with Hiding's amendment in the last thread on Verifiable evidence, and I think it is fair to say that Hiding and myself don't see eye to eye on this issue, which is why an RFC needs to be drawn up. If anyone wishes to put forward alternative wording to my own, this would be welcome, and perhaps we can at least discuss and agree on what form the RFC should take. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hah! It's rather disingenuous to describe the original text of the page as Hiding's amendment, isn't it? Looking back at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 33#Notability is not inherited, Gavin's objection, or at least reasoning, is "that articles should not be written based on speculation that one topic is notable because it is related to another." I can't see how the page allows that at present. Hiding T 12:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

notablity template

Hi. A notability template has been affixed to a band article at The Shells (folk band). As background, prior to to the template being affixed an editor suggested that it lacked notability, but there was no consensus supporting him, and hence the article was kept. Can someone suggest to me what steps need be taken to delete the template? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again (for the millionth+1 time now), there was also no consensus that the band is notable—the AfD was closed as no consensus which means there was not consensus (it means the opposite of "yes consensus").

As for removing the tag, the only way to do that is to demonstrate notability clearly in the article, and do so well enough that an uninvolved editor will review it and agree that the tag can be removed. You can't just delete the template because you feel that the band is notable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment, I thought that templates get deleted when discussion ends -- with or without a consensus reached on the talk page. The idea that there needs to be a consensus to remove an article template such as {{Notability}} does not seem to be current practice. Stale templates for which the discussion was abandoned months or years ago (or never started) are commonplace. patsw (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if appropriate, perhaps you as an uninvolved editor can do the honors then? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability is a red herring

As long as the article is well written and sourced, notability should never be an issue. If someone put time into an article, and someone else is interested in reading it, that should be good enough to allow the article to stay. This is the biggest failing of Wikipedia, and hopefully it will change.

Don't hold your breath. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything that is well-written and well-sourced does not belong in the Wikipedia. That's the principle of WP:What Wikipedia is not and then it gets some clarification and consensus around what does belong in it by policies like this one. If you have a better idea of good enough than expressed in WP:GNG, let's see it. patsw (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the 'What Wikipedia is not' principles, actually. Notability is a different issue and the 'notability police' are getting really old. The General Notability Guidelines are actually quite reasonable, but IMO are being abused and subverted/misinterpreted regularly 24.4.132.165 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the above in regards to the fact that notability should never be an issue...and that this deletion epidemic taking place on wikipedia is the biggest failing of wikipedia. I hope this is just a trend but i'm afraid it is not. I feel the deletion police are simply vandals who are vandalising wikipedia under the guise of 'rule and law.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you think "should" would work?

Can someone suggest what article subjects would start to appear (or reappear from old AFDs) if "require" is changed to "should"? These would be articles which definitively and obviously fail WP:GNG and otherwise pass What the Wikipedia is not and What the Wikipedia is or in other words, there is no significant coverage of the article's subject except in the Wikipedia article itself. And remember editors draw the inference "need not require" from "should". patsw (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

None would. WP:DEL would still require article topics to be notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEL is the process for the deleting an article. WP:NOT broadly outlines what is included and what is excluded. Both policies delegate the definition of notable to this WP:Notability guideline. If this guideline is changed to "should" from "require", it changes the criteria for the deletion, as WP:DEL is now written. patsw (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the procedure, I'm talking about WP:DEL#REASON - the policy on which articles should be deleted. Even if this guideline is altered to contradict it, the policy will override it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of the "should" wording to find from recent AfD's or a new article the otherwise good articles which were deleted as a result of WP:GNG and the "require" wording, and which would now be included with the hypothetical "should" wording. Make the case for how "should" wording would yield a better Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to demonstrate how the wording matters, since it is a consensus at afd that determines a deletion decision, not the wording of this page. Hiding T 09:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I, and others, have amply demonstrated that the proposers themselves are confused and lack a consensus on what "should" wording means to the Wikipedia. Their confusion and their lack of consensus "matter" as you put it. This guideline with "require" wording guides the formation of a consensus at WP:Afd and so many of the AfD's are quickly resolved with "notability is required." Since you brought it up, let me mention it again, the "need to demonstrate" (i.e. burden of proof) is held by the proposers for a change to a guideline. Surely, if this proposal was good for the Wikipedia, examples of good articles which fail the current wording but pass the proposed working would be easy to find. patsw (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

First, you've "amply demonstrated" nothing of the kind. I'm the only original proposer, and I am not confused. Those who supported the proposal certainly have their different reasons, but so do those opposed. Freedom of thought.

Second, I showed early on that WP:N's require wording does not jibe with the other content policies, a concrete fact with numerous examples (above) that you have have not refuted. Instead, your next line of argument was that a change would disrupt the way AfD works, a possible but unsubstantiated conjecture. Without proving this, you subsequently demanded that the opposition prove that your fear was untrue. I suggest you stop commanding others and realize where the burden of proof lies. - Draeco (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that you place a higher value on the consistency of wording in WP:N than on the what I and others believe to be a certainty of disruption in the Wikipedia editing process over "should" being interpreted as "need not require". For any proposal the burden of proof is on the proposers and the proposers here have not only not met the burden of proof but have not shown any good articles which are currently being blocked by the current "require" wording. So, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. The Wikipedia has been working fine by requiring notability; you need to make the case that it would work even better by not requiring notability (i.e. "should"), namely to allow articles that clearly and obviously do not have any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article subject itself. patsw (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Patsw that Notability is a requirement for all articles, particularly those about living persons. When WP:BLP says that "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability". Clearly if notabilty was not requirement, then we could include trivial and biased sources which are not reliable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I could agree for the case of BLPs that "require" could be kept, but beyond that it has been shown notability isn't needed. If it were, artciles wouldn't pass with "keep" and fail the GNG/SNGs.陣内_Jinnai 04:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

When is it OK to remove a notability tag?

It seems that anyone can drop a notability tag on a large number (maybe even a majority) of Wikipedia articles and then voice their opinion on the discussion page. If a consensus can't be achieved then the notability tag stays on the article forever. Subjective notability arguments can get very complex and legalistic. The notability tag is very strongly worded and practically threatens to delete the article unless the notability issue is fixed. I am hoping that notability is fix soon, however, if notability continues in its present form maybe there needs to be at least two notability tags. One tag that this strongly worded and leaning toward deletion and another tag that is more neutrally worded indicating that article has merit but consensus has not been reached for notability. (I believe the best solution is to break notability up into a series of smaller, less complex and more objective issues.) Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that notability is a requirement for a topic to have a Wikipedia article. So it's hard to see how an article would have "merit" without being notable. If there's not a consensus, then the article isn't going to be deleted in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An AfD discussion closed as "keep" generally is a definitive consensus that you can point to when removing notability templates. ^Bongo_matic 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What if there was no AfD discussion and no consensus has been reached on the article's discussion. Does that mean the notability tag stays on the article forever. This seems to make it easy to leave a tag and almost impossible to remove it. And, the notability tag is not a very nice looking tag.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Any article that has been tagged for some time should be nominated for deletion, in my view. I'm sure there are lots about that haven't been though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If it has been discussed but no consensus has been reached and no one bothered to put up the article for deletion, remove the tag. This tag is not supposed to stay indefinitely. Garion96 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If it has been discussed but no consensus has been reached and no one bothered to put up the article for deletion, it's time to either fix the article or put the article up for deletion, not time to ignore the article's problems. Dlabtot (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of a question that I have been talking about for about a week. Is there an article subject that has "merit" which is also a WP:GNG fail? In other words, how can someone or something become a good new article subject in the Wikipedia without any prior significant coverage in a book, journal, magazine, web site, etc. after a diligent search? Is this a discovery made by the Wikipedia editor which everyone else somehow missed up to this point? I have been looking at the AfD's which fail on notability and I cannot find one that might have been a good article but for a WP:GNG fail. patsw (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you agree that WP:GNG is subjective then any article can fail WP:GNG depending on how WP:GNG is interpreted. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is surely why we rely on censensus? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding when to remove the tag, it should remain until there's a consensus it passes WP:Notability, or as the template states, the article is merged or deleted. patsw (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to make it easy to leave a tag and almost impossible to remove it. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why impossible? If sources are provided to establish notability, the tag can be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "If you agree that WP:GNG is subjective then any article can fail WP:GNG". This is fallacious reasoning. With the majority of topics, even subjective interpretations will lead to robust conclusions. Willy Brandt passes the GNG regardless of its selective application. 3,249,403rd blade of grass in the lawn at Versailles doesn't. Like most subjective tests, its application is problematic only near the border, and slippery slope arguments about subjectivity cannot be supported by outcomes. ^Bongo_matic 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An important step being omitted here... tags indicate that there is a problem with the article... they can be removed when the problem is FIXED. In this case, when the article is improved to the point where it passes WP:GNG. For example, if the tag was placed on the article because "notability was not established by referring to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject", then the tag can be removed when such sources are found and added to the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've run into this problem recently with The Shells and its album Written Roads. An editor put The Shells up for AfD on the basis of notability, but did not garner consensus support. He appealed that decision, but again did not garner consensus support. He told me I could not delete the notability tags on the two articles, as I am an involved editor. But when another editor sought to delete the notability tags, he reverted claiming no reason was given. Can someone help? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It probably doesn't help that you were found to be using sockpuppets in the editing of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That initial incorrect determination was reversed, which was why the block was lifted. Feel free to contact the lifting admin for more background if you wish.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with User:Garion96. If an article survives an AfD, whether it surives narrowly or by a wide margin, the notability tag should be removed. Once the AfD process has closed and become final, there is no justification for continuing to have the article marked with a scarlet letter -- at least not a notability scar. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Only if it is closed as "keep", not as "no consensus". ^Bongo_matic 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

An AfD discussion cannot bestow notability, only reliable sources can, and maintenance tags should remain until the problem they highlight has been addressed. Removing them early because they are seen as a "scar" helps nobody, least of all the article. If it needs sourcing, removing a tag saying "please add sources" isn't all that helpful. Unless, of course, you add the sources yourself. Miremare 00:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussions and maintenence tags are designed to address different issues... An AfD is desinged to find out if an article's topic is considered notable enough for Wikiepdia. A maintenance tag is desinged to draw attention to a problem with the article itself... a problem that needs to be fixed. Don't remove a maintenance tag until the problem it highlights is fixed (in this case, don't remove it until the article does pass WP:GNG.) Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO I concur with Garion96 and Cbl62 above. Beyond that, though, I believe there are some situations in which requests for "more information" are put on the talk page rather than the article page -- for example, some "photo requested" tags. Would that serve the purpose of seeking help for the article, while not "scarring" it?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that any article for which the subject doesn't meet the requirements of the Wikipedia is subject to deletion. An article whose subject is not given any coverage in reliable secondary sources is always an WP:AfD candidate regardless of the presence or absence of the tag. (And I am still looking for actual examples which fail WP:GNG but otherwise are good articles in a section above.) A long-standing {{notability}} tag is a anomaly. It should be very rare. As WP:FAILN states, an article that doesn't pass is generally improved, merged, or deleted. How much time to improve is given is a matter for a consensus of editors in the proposed article. The tag should be removed when there's a consensus of editors that the article is improved so subject passes WP:N, or it is made moot by merge or deletion. patsw (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

When is it OK to remove a notability tag? after there is a clear consensus that the article meets the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

..maybe there needs to be at least two notability tags. One tag that this strongly worded and leaning toward deletion and another tag that is more neutrally worded indicating that article has merit but consensus has not been reached for notability..

There used to be a separate less-strongly worded template called "{{importance}}" but it seems to have been converted into something else. Maybe we could restore that one, I for one found it useful. Just a thought. -- œ^™ 00:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed a remnant remained behind from the conversion of that template.. {{Importance-section}} was its 'section' counterpart. -- œ^™ 00:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Importance" is a term of art used by Wikiprojects for classification, notability is the word we are stuck with. An article for which the article's subject doesn't pass WP:N will be improved, merged, or deleted in due course. And I am still looking for articles that have "merit", as people refer to it here, but fail WP:GNG per WP:FAILN in the section above. patsw (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will offer any, per WP:BEANS. Unfortunate, but it is the climate we live in. It may be possible to identify such articles yourself by trawling through the deletion sorting archives. Hiding T 12:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to find such articles. They're mostly within the sciences: Astronomical objects (such as stars or asteroids), individual species of beetle, classes of mathematical equation, concepts in applied mathematics or physics, or tooth taxa (among dinosaurs, for example) would be good places to start. As Hiding says, I'm not dumb enough to link any of them here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Inherently Subjective

Applying the concept of notability is inherently subjective and not encyclopedic. Paper books had to apply this limitation due to physical constraints, WP is not limited in this way. It's like trying to decide if something is art. If one person thinks it's art (or notable) who are you to tell them they are wrong?24.4.132.165 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding. The dictionary definition of notability is quite thin and neither objective nor subjective, it's descriptive. Notability as used in the Wikipedia refers to whether an article or proposed article's subject should be included in the Wikipedia. It is a term of art and we're stuck with that word. Wikipedia editors decide by consensus (using several policies and guidelines including WP:NOTABILITY) what should be in the Wikipedia, and not "one person". The general notability guideline and subject-specific notability guidelines have much objectivity in them while giving a consensus of editors flexibility in their application. It's a consensus of editors that tell the author of a rejected article their article subject doesn't satisfy the inclusion criteria (i.e. "wrong"). In any case, authors are free to publish elsewhere. patsw (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria by which we determine notability are not subjective at all. for example: if a topic is discussed by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then we consider it notable... if it is not discussed by such sources then we do not consider it notable. Nothing subjective about that. Blueboar (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That anon isn't going to effect any change, but it is subjective. Reliability, independence, and non-triviality are all gray areas. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Blueboar, do you want to look at what you wrote again and work out how subjective notability is: "reliable", "secondary" and "independent" are all subjective terms that cause major arguments in some deletion debates. It's a sop to say notability is objective. patsw has the better answer; it's not objective, but it's better than a street fight with editors saying "I like it" vs "I don't". Notability serves as a framework for debates; the consensus of the debate determines notability, the guideline just guides us in reaching that consensus. So to answer "who are you to tell them they are wrong?" I'm just another person, same as you. Hiding T 10:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I am sure that there are situations where people try to argue that a source meets our criteria when others argue that it does not ... but the terms are not subjective. They are "terms of art" that are defined in other policies and guidelines (such as WP:PSTS and WP:RS). Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have demonstrated my point by disagreeing. That we dispute the point demonstrates the subjectivity. They can't be terms of art because we aren't lawyers, unless you really wish to wiki-lawyer this point. It's rather disingenuous to describe them as "terms of art" as if that were an accepted fact rather than another point of debate. Hiding T 09:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to somewhat agree with Hiding.
Reliable - this is one that we defined here, but it is not a universaly accepted definition, even among the industry. Some people consider sites like IGN unreliable because they sometimes do fluff piecies and others consider News media in general unrelaibale because they will often publish stuff sent in by businesses as their own, others consider certain studies as unreliable compared to others. There are even experts in the field who consider certain blogs by indivisuals as more reliable in certain contexts than news media.
Secondary - A secondary source needs to be 1 step removed from the source. This means clearly a movie citing itself is not a primary source and a sports commentator covering an event is secondary (not secondary =/= independent) what about an actor talking about the role of someone else's character in the movie? What about his own character (assuming he wasn't a major force in tis creation)?
Independent - often this is the hardest to pin down. We often give news media a "free pass" on their independance even though as noted above, they release stuff developed by businesses or groups with an agenda and sometimes stuff is pulled off their air or toned down because of corperate ties. There is also the problem for stuff like fictional elements, such as a director talking about certain elements, like a character or the background of an item that in no way is meant to drum up extra sales of the product, such a being released with the product itself in all versions and the item is already popular enough to sell or being interviewed sometime later after retail sales have ceased and further re-releases aren't expected. Then there are things like the above, is the actor who talks about the role of someone else in the film really independent?
As you can see Bluebear, all 3 terms are loaded and subjective.陣内_Jinnai 21:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, the concept of 'notability' is subjective as is a 'reliable' source. The current deletion epidemic on wikipedia is a symptom of a great idea being over taken by small minded people with a lot of free time on their hands. The deletion police on wikipedia are a destructive force to the constructive force that WAS wikipedia. I predict that wikipedia will eventually simply become just another online encyclopedia, with few new articles being added at all...b/c the deletion police will be swarming to take out any 'non-notable' topics. It honestly saddens me that this is the route that wikipedia took, but not surprising, all too often great things are led astray by destructive, uncreative and small minded people. Hopefully some of the deletion police on wikipedia will seek to create instead of destroy....but i doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, anon., add below examples of the articles which make your point. These would be articles which are good in your opinion, fail WP:N, and yet pass the other requirements. Some clarification of your opinion would be helpful: are you critical of the editors of these articles for failing to find significant coverage in secondary reliable sources where it could be found, or critical of the editors who csd or afd them for failing WP:N, or simply objecting that article topics should have significant coverage in secondary reliable sources? patsw (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That brings up a question I've never seen answered, and none of the above even try. Why is there a notability guideline? It makes sense in a printed encyclopedia, as space is necessarily limited and there's more than enough notable material to fill any size anyone would ever print (cf. Britannica). But online, there is no obvious reason for an arbitratily chosen guideline of being "this notable" vs. not. (Take for example musical acts; those who get big press or win an award are "notable"; a band that doesn't make Rolling Stone, or get on the increasingly irrelevant charts, or win a Grammy, may be "un-notable" despite selling a hundred thousand albums on "non-major" labels, or being written up repeatedly in market-specific media that aren't "reliable" due to not being printed on paper or being a major commercial publication. Why exclude any published (especially non-self-published) artist of any medium? Why not a sales criterion? Why this worship of legacy media and awards? Why this pretense of being Britannica and only covering what's "important" to some unspecified audience? There's nothing to be gained from it. 173.11.1.217 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is asked often and the full answer is given in What the Wikipedia is not. The summary answer relevant to this notability guideline is that the Wikipedia editing community has believed, and believes that without the requirement that article topic itself being good for the Wikipedia, an article cannot be good. There are subject notability guidelines for musical acts and perhaps you want to direct your specific questions about your example there. patsw (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Breaking big news" articles

As I am beginning to somewhat get annoyed with the rather large AfDs after ”breaking big news". It's becoming quite disruptive on several occasions. So I like to propose about not have these articles be created but to wait for a month or so to create it. It has turn into a drama-filled AfD, which should never have happen. I am hoping we can form a consensus. Robert9673 (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Oppose because a (eg:month-long) time-based criterion would (for example) mean that Wikipedia had no article on a truly historic breaking event (9/11?) for a month - and I can't fathom that making sense. Further, for the reasons described at WP:Recentism there is some value in starting an article early.--Jaymax (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The article should be created when it is obvious it is time to be created whether that is an hour of the story breaking or a year. Time is a necessary factor, but some events establish themselves as significant much sooner than others. --MASEM (t) 12:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia generally does coverage of current events quite well in my experience. I think existing rules are satisfactory to prevent problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Throws the baby out with the bathwater. Prohibiting creation of articles about events until a month has passed would cause severe disillusionment among content contributors, and ban the early coverage of major events. This proposal would cause severe harm to Wikipedia. That said, I wish editors wouldn't create articles on the basis of breaking news reports, but wait until news analysis has appeared. The rush to create articles on news stories and people who appear in them is unhelpful. Fences&Windows 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

How would this be enforced? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what the consensus is for. If people agreed to it, then we can say that "breaking big news" articles would have to wait until there was a clear indication of the subject's notability. Robert9673 (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate on "would have to wait". How would it be possible to prevent people from creating articles? Or are you simply advocating a new speedy for news items? I don't see how this wouldn't be extremely subjective regardless of implementation. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if you see the reasons why I wanted to propose this. I was reading this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident. The closing admin suggested that we form a consensus about "breaking big news" articles. I thought it was a great idea. This is what I want to propose. Robert9673 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate on Clear indication of notability - because to me, that is not compatible with a month or so above. --Jaymax (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In a real encyclopedia, they only update new information every year. The reason for this is to wait for subjects to establish notability. When "breaking news" happens, we don't know if it will be notable in the future. This is what it means when Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should wait for the subject to establish notability. We have the Wikinews, so the information would all be saved there. We wouldn't have to worry about finding the sources if the subject would be notable in the future. Why rush in getting it here on Wikipedia? It will be here later just as soon as the subject establishes notability. I don't see any good reason here why we must report on "breaking news". What if it's not notable in the future? We would have to delete all that hard work. If we just put it on Wikinews. We can decide rather the information should be included in Wikipedia. Robert9673 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement is a perfectly legitimate concern. If we on this page (or whatever policy page the discussion happens to land on) decide that NOT#NEWS trumps the existence of sources and we attempt to convince 2-3 dozen reasonable, otherwise independent wikiepdians of this fact during an AfD discussion, we are basically going to be told to pound sand. The gradual wearing down of NOT#NEWS has nothing to do with policy discussions and everything to do with available sources, editor interests and demand for information. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The notability guideline is pretty clear that WP:NOT trumps the presumption otherwise defined at WP:N. But WP:NOT#NEWS is very vague - and sometimes I think people attach more significance to the name of the shortcut than the actual text. Query re 'wearing down' - is that in terms of recentism, or has the defining text there become softer over time?--Jaymax (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Article Creation: The assumption is that a tweak to the guideline here is going to change the human behavior causing the disruption in the first place. The mad dash to the keyboard is not going to change.
• WP:Afd Guidance: I don't think it's a matter of what trumps what. I think there should be cooling off period of at least 10 and less than 30 days before there's a AfD where WP:NOTNEWS can be argued on the grounds that the topic itself doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. I think Colorado balloon incident (October 15, 2009) would be a good consensus keep after editors get a few days perspective. There's a lot of WP:CRYSTAL in those premature AfD discussions regarding the significance of a news story that is potentially avoidable. patsw (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What about (a) moving such news articles to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, or (b) sending people to WP:Wikinews or (c) in such cases keeping a reasonably stable stubby article, and a subpage, more active development "long version"? All of these would reduce the drama factor. On the other hand, it is one way new contributors get drawn in (albeit it's often a difficult environment to get started in). No easy answer. Rd232 ^talk 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what the Wikipedia:Articles for creation is for? It serves as a guideline to help editors create articles. If the article is declined, editors can still work on it to improve if there is any hope. They are very strict on the sourcing by the way. And you know why? So it would prevent the article as being a potential candidate for deletion. Honestly, if every single article just went through the Articles for creation, we wouldn't need the Articles for deletion. And now I hear there is an Article Incubator? That's ridiculous. Its either a subject meets notability or not. If it doesn't, you can't save it no matter how much you love that subject. Robert9673 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a dumb idea to throw into the mixing pot - Every newly created article is auto-exempt from anything but speedy delete for a period of n days (and potentially gets put through a routine AfD at m days after creation). I can think of lots of valid arguments against such an idea - but it would prevent a lot of the AfD nonsense, while allowing the article to be 'incubated' while still adding value to the encyclopedia. --Jaymax (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was recently suggested that there be no prods or AfDs for two days after an article creation - it was almost universally opposed. Fences&Windows 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is why we have the Wikipedia:Articles for creation. It would lower the drama level of deletion candidates and prods. In the AfC, Wikipedia editors make good faith reviews whether subjects establish notability. This should be the principle for creating articles. Currently, the community has established that any editor can create an article without regards to the notability guideline. It has resulted in vandalism. I suggest that the community look at their policies again to see what needs changes to prevent vandalism. We have not done a great job in preventing vandalism. Robert9673 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as a failed proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on a new section of the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability CAN BE temporary

Where is the problem in a significant event getting it's own article? That the event may not, with hindsight, be as significant in the long term as it was in the short term is fine.

Why not allow event articles to be written while they are notable - these articles will soon fall to an RfD once the event has passed, and in the meantime, the encyclopaedia is providing a useful, hopefully good quality information resource on something people are interested in. And I'm NOT talking WikiNews here, because news is about what's happening TODAY, not about something that perhaps unravels over a week or six, where an encylopaedia article (even if short lived) will provide a holistic view.

Case in point - the Colorado balloon incident - I don't see the rational argument for deletion now - I bet the article is providing real benefit to wiki consumers - I do agree that, if the notability passes, the article should go.

In short, it is just wrong to say that Notability is NEVER temporary - and the policy should be adjusted accordingly, such that the encyclopaedia can provide useful information (especially background etc, that might not feature in TODAYs news item) to those using Wikipedia as an info resource.--Jaymax (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting way to view this is through the lens of consensus can change. What the community decides is notable for inclusion can and does change over time and if we honestly believe an event like the balloon incident is of historic importance than the article stays. If, five years down the road, we realise that we made the wrong decision (or vice-versa, if a little-known incident becomes famous over time) the previous consensus can be overridden and a new consensus be established. ThemFromSpace 05:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of the "difficulty" - the amount of work and involvement - needed to delete an article once its created - which only requires one person - we need to steer away from creating articles on every little thing and only create article once we're assured there's something to that. That's why we consider the temporarily nature of fame and importance and why they are not qualifiers for notability. Remember, MediaWiki also has Wikinews so topics that aren't notable but newsworthy can be covered there. --MASEM (t) 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems quite illogical - if editors are prepared to come to Wikipedia and edit something, rather than go shopping or do the dishes, 'difficulty' becomes meaningless. This argument would only make sense if it was assumed that significant numbers of editors who would otherwise be editing different articles are being significantly distracted from doing so.

Separately, please re-read WP:N and show me where it talks about "the temporarily nature of fame and importance" - they are certainly not qualifiers - but neither do they disqualify.

Further, please read WP:Recentism - Wikipedia is not WikiNews, a breaking, notable news item belongs in both places.--Jaymax (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD is already considered overloaded because of different interpretations both ways of notability, and many feel that they are being distracted from editing articles by the time they have to spend at AFD. Counter that to the amount of effort needed to create a new article (clicking one link and editing away). We need to encourage editors to use more common sense before creating new articles even if it is easy to do, and that means waiting to see if a single event becomes more significant than just a slow news day. WP:N's first paragraph distinguishes what notability is from fame and importance, and notes that they help but are not indicative of notability.

But most importantly, WP:Recentism is exactly what we need to avoid. Every day, there are probably on the order of hundreds of newsworthy items that are covered by national and international journalism, that would appear to have significant coverage in secondary sources to be notable. Sometimes these clear are - the 9/11 attacks for one - and we can create articles immediately about them. But in most other cases, it is impossible to tell what impact that event will have beyond just being that event without invoking speculation per WP:CRYSTAL. It may take days, weeks or even years for that event to become significant. Some events don't become any more significant that just being one event. Reporting on that event is perfectly fine over at Wikinews, but we're looking to build an encyclopedia here, and we need to avoid being indiscriminate, and as such we cannot just cover every single newsworthy event that occurs; only those that clearly have been found to be standalone notable events over time. That doesn't mean we can't find existing topics to place mention of such events should they have gotten that type of coverage. (for example, the balloon news item, should what has occurred in the news be the end of it, would probably find a good home as a brief paragraph in an article about media hoaxes.) Unless it is assured that the event is notable, Wikinews can be used to stage the information about the event, and if/when the event becomes notable, we can transwiki the information here into a fuller article.

The TLDR answer: covering any breaking news event is indiscriminate. We need hindsight on that event to clearly show notability. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, there's a lack of straight out logic in your arguments

1) No-one has to spend time with AfD other than by choice. You do not give reasons, pertnant to THIS debate, why spending time at AfD is more important than other forms of contribution. One could equally validly from your points make the argument that we should be encouraging editors to spend less time arguing for artcle deletion at AfD and more time contributing to articles they want to remain

2) You point out that everyday there are hundreds of newsworthy items - go on to recognise 9/11, but fail to point out that not hundreds of intrenched AfD debates every day. Where is the evidence that New-Article-Recintism (as evidenced by creation of articles for Balloon Boy or 9/11) is something that 'is exactly what we need to avoid'?

3) WP:Crystal is a total non-argument here AFAICT - for one, that explicitly relates to content that is "unverifiable speculation" - the content under debate meets the explicit criteria as currently defined under WP:V and WP:N and the CONTENT is not speculatative. The only thing which IS speculative, is whether the CURRENT meeting of the WP:N criteria will persist through time. WP:N deals well with the concept of notability ACCUMULATING through time. It fails almost entirely to deal with sudden, criteria meeting notability that may dissapate without re-enforcement. User:Themfromspace makes (I think) a reasonable point above that could accomodate this

TLDR & 4) "as such we cannot just cover every single newsworthy event that occurs" straw man fallacy.--Jaymax (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When an article is created that generally is not accepted by consensus, there are at least two steps that have to be cleared: the process of New Page Patrol to flag the article, and the process of creating and the closing an AFD. These have to be done if an article that should never have been created was created - who does it will be volunteering but there is usually a large number of admins that handle this so it will be done. That doesn't account for any AFD participation or CSD/PROD initialization and closure. It is not a trivial thing to remove an article compared to the trivialness of registrating and waiting for auto-confirmation before creation. It is good that it is biased towards creation rather than deletion, but that doesn't mean people need to be adding articles willy-nilly.

And unless consensus has changed (it doesn't appear based on what I see at AFD), we still as a whole discourage the creation of articles simply based on recent events and coverage thereof. That's what supports WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NTEMP, and WP:RECENT. WP:CRYSTAL applies in conjunction with all these along with the five pillars as to prevent us, the editors, presuming that a random event in the news that is well covered is somehow going to be significant. Maybe the stock market hitting 10,000 points on Friday will, in a year, be the event that sets off a Golden Age of prosperity for the World. Or maybe it is just another number. Maybe that balloon hoax will cause a revolving in press reporting, or maybe it will just be a end-of-year weird news story for 2009 and never be heard again. Yes, we are a different encyclopedia from something like Britianica, and are free to include more stuff, and thus we likely do contain more news events than have a lasting impact than the printed versions, but we are still an encyclopedia, not a news magazine or journal. We are looking to write articles that will preserve significant human knowledge for the future, and recognizing that every event cannot be reasonably included in that. Wikinews was specifically created to handle that type of free content reporting. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"articles simply based on recent events" "Maybe the stock market hitting 10,000 points on Friday will, in a year... Just more of the same straw-man argument, rather than paticularly responding to any of my points. The various consensus derived policies you reference, as currently WORDED, do not concur with your interpretation of what is the current consensus. I'm not saying the policies shouldn't move in that direction - perhaps they should. I'm not giving up on this issue, but I'm not going to continue this particular sub-discussion, because it's going nowhere. Cheers though. --Jaymax (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion isn't "going nowhere", it's just not going in the direction you want, lol. You are just wrong in your understanding of the term 'notability' as it is used on Wikipedia, and that's why you find such a clear consensus against your position. Dlabtot (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol - The only direction I want the discussion to go in, is alignment between consensus around what passes notability criteria, and the documented notability guidelines. That there is an issue around the words being unclear (in partcular WP:NOTNEWS is blatantly evident from the balloon boy AfD, and also similar, if less extreme, earlier examples. But I will not engage in redundant circular discussion. --Jaymax (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the consensus can sometimes be wrong, which is why it can change. I'm not sure what exactly it is that you believe is 'blatantly evident' however. What is this blatantly evident Truth&#0153;? Dlabtot (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply that the applicability or otherwise of WP:NOT#NEWS to the Balloon Boy story was argued with intelligence and passion by numerous editors on both sides of the AfD debate, and that makes it blatantly obvious that the way it is worded is unclear, or subject to multiple interpretations. Is that clearer for you? --Jaymax (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? There does not and can not exist a policy or guideline that is not subject to multiple interpretations. Thousands of active editors don't understand or misapply our policies and argue with passion for wrong or nonsensical positions. A large number of disputes are settled with a consensus that is simply wrong. But consensus can change, errors can be corrected, and editors can learn. Dlabtot (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Many of our guidelines and policies don't reflect the outcome of AfDs or what editors do. There are various reason for this, but it's always been like that, as far as I know. And, it's not something that can be changed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And one interesting way in which our AfDs may not follow policy, is that people nominate article during the big media blitz, and not so much afterwards. It weights it towards inclusion, because the AfD happens while the story is on TV, and people vote keep because it's all over the news. A year later when we may have changed our minds, no one notices it enough to nominate it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fame may be fleeting, but notability - the term we use to indicate whether a topic meets our notability criteria - is not. Dlabtot (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say so explicitly in WP:N - at best, it states "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" - but again, nothing implies that "a short burst of news reports" which qualify against the documented notability criteria is insufficient to pass the notability threshold.--Jaymax (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Something that meets the criteria for inclusion is by definition notable in the Wikipedia usage of the word. It is our term of art. I seem to always need to start with that to discuss the process here. The example picked is not a good example to launch the discussion. It's hard to discuss the Colorado balloon incident being worthy of inclusion only for a finite period. That's not the way an online encyclopedia should work. The 1987 version of the balloon story is Jessica McClure. It's a great article, it's at the top of the Google search results, and I assume has been frequently consulted to gain a perspective on how the coverage of child in peril stories and cable news saturation stories have evolved as a media phenomenon. I suspect the balloon article will become a great article as well. patsw (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In a way, this discussion mirrors earlier debates about sports coverage that where central to Do news reports confer notablity? and AFD and news reports. I think the general principal developed was that a few news reports on their own do not confer notbility because events that are covered as a matter or record do not constitute "significant coverage". However, I think it is common sense that a certain point (not defined) a certain critical point is reached, and events such as the Colorado balloon incident become notable as the weight of coverage grows, and the news reports include more analysis, commentary and discussion. My view is that this does not invalid WP:TEMP in any way; rather it is guidance intended to weed out those articles which are not the subject of significant coverage, and represents a lower threshold.
A better example of this might be certain reoccuring events that are routinely reported in the news, which are probably better merged as a single topic. For instance, the coverage of the 1989 Botswana general election is very thin, but collectively Elections in Botswana might make a better encyclopedic article. When it comes to creating new articles, I think the key consideration should be whether there is enough significant coverage to write a good article, rather creating new articles just because a topic has featured more than once in the newspapers. For this reason, "Notability is not temporary" is a good rule of thumb. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, sadly you have picked two examples which are better examples of systemic bias, rather than transient notability. From a US-centric POV, one could hardly avoid hearing about this balloon non-event over the last few days, while articles elections in Botswana will doubtlessly expand & become more detailed as we improve our coverage of politics in that country. Perhaps a better example are those problematic articles about historical personages who are doubtlessly notable (e.g., kings, major nobles) but about whom very little is known -- perhaps only a mention or two in primary sources, & lack any systematic analysis in the relevant secondary sources. In the case of these shadowy personages, the chances these stubs or starts will ever be expanded to something that might become a Featured article is slim to none. Those are the cases where the best solution might be to merge those articles. -- llywrch (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Colorado balloon story made it onto the BBC world news tonight so there was some non U.S. coverage. I often loose this argument at AfD but I think it is too soon to know whether that story will be notable or not. All you have now is a burst of news stories from a single news cycle. Now odds are that someone will write a book (or at least a chapter in a book) or a feature length article in a news magazine that covers the event in detail and provides overview and contextual analysis (such as comparison with other child peril stories from the past or analysis of what makes a story into a sensation, or relates the family to other unconventional families), and at that point you will have what you need to establish notability, and to write a decent encyclopedia article. Until then though the story belongs at wikinews not at wikipedia. The problem with the idea of temporary notability is that it turns wikipedia into a news service, and that is what WP:NOTNEWS explicitly trys to prevent. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jessica McClure is different, in the sense that Wikipedia didn't have to confront the issues, which surround the emergence of content relating to Balloon Boy, as the content was coming into existence. WikiNews is also different - I don't think there was any time (perhaps an hour or two) when the article here was particularly 'news like' - from the get-go it was being treated as an encyclopaedic reference collection of information pertaining to the subject (albeit undergoing rapid development and collection). Simplistically: Wikinews is for news and currency, Wikipedia is for reference and accumulation of knowledge. The split is not one of chronology, but one of purpose.

The problem, or question, is what to do when many editors strongly believe that a subject which currently passes the documented standards for WP:N ("topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"), does NOT contravene anything in WP:NOT (specifically, the content is neither speculative, nor routine), while many other editors believe that it will have no "historical notability".

That phrase in WP:NOT (Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events.) is at the core of the issue. The question should not be 'what is current' or 'what it news' - but 'what is "historic"' in the context of an online encyclopaedia? If 'history' includes the-day-before-yesterday, then something that is historically notable from today's perspective, may not be historically notable from the perspective of a couple of years away.

But - that determination from today's perspective can only ever be highly subjective and personal - but something that editors can understandibly have very strong opinions about. Regardless, none of us can see the future. We might virtually all agree that 9/11 would retain it's notability (per the WP:N criteria) from the moments after the first plane hit for (probably) thousands of years - we might virtually all agree that last nights suprise upset football win has notability (per the WP:N criteria) for a day at most, and thus fails WP:NOTNEWS test for being 'routine'. But we need some objective tests for when there is no easy consensus to be reached (as per Balloon Boy)--Jaymax (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You will be glad to hear that an objective test in the form of WP:GNG already exists, and when it comes to news reports, there really needs to be sufficient "significant coverage" to write an article, and by that I mean commentary, criticism and analysis that provide context for the reader is needed in addition to routine reporting of events. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, what? You are referring back at me the very test that I refer to repeatedly above as being inadequate, and indeed quote IN FULL the lead paragraph of - in italics no less. The presumption in WP:N is over-ruled by WP:NOT which is vague. However, if you can point me to where something says news items must include "commentary, criticism and analysis that provide context" I'd be grateful - but I'd also point out that I could find the same for many routine sports matches - and so even adding these conditions is still an inadequate objective test to distinquish what properly deserves an article.--Jaymax (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only give you an specific example by analogy, but I think you will agree this will throw more light on the issue. In the SNG for books, capsule reviews and flap copy are disallowed as evidence of notability. Such coverage is a staple content of most newspapers with an Arts or Literature section, which are designed to keep readers abreast of the latest book, film and music releases. Flap copy and capsule reviews are little more than brief product descriptions, and are usually devoid of commentary, criticism and analysis that provide evidence of notability. Such coverage is not significant.
I will admit that WP:GNG is less specific, but the defintion of significant coverage, namely sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content, is very clear. If an article topic is addreessed directly and in detial, then surely it will contain some form commentary, criticism or analysis. Most routine reports, which are a matter of record only, do not contain this sort of coverage, but as the coverage of a news event broadens, so too will the proportion of commentary. As a general rule of thumb, as the quantity and quality of commentary increases, the evidence that a news event is notable becomes stronger. This is why notability can't be temporary. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It can, but doesn't have to. It can be a lengthy synopsis of the book with just trivial analysis like "X was the best character in the book." without giving a reason and "Y is a definite read for most people." It can otherwise address it in detail by talking blow-by-blow what happens, listing facts about the book and other not really related comments on the book, such as the paper quality. All of those are "in detail".陣内_Jinnai 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I think we're largely in agreement - except for some semantic differences. Perhaps we need something like a specific notability guidline for breaking news stories. I'm going to keep going back to Balloon Boy because that (or rather, the epic AfD) is what triggered me to start this thread. I don't disagree with the thrust of what you are saying. Presumably, if a book generated significant pre-publication discussion in WP:RS it might be notable even before publication? (eg: per 5 in the WP:BK nutshell)--Jaymax (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think at the end of the day, what this really comes down to is understanding if the event is sufficiently significant to be more than an isolated event. Say for the balloon incident that the child was really in the balloon, but ultimately rescued and reunited and all was well. Well, it's a great feel-good story and would likely have received the same breadth of coverage, but presumably would remain an isolated event that impacted little else as a whole. In this case, the event still remains isolated, and thus we should not cover it in depth. But as it turned out, the event was a fraud, and played to the power of the media and as such has had a more significant impact than just some people playing a hoax on the media. Thus it is considered notable and worth an article.

It is very difficult of course to define that line, because personal opinion on the impact of the event is going to be widely varied as you get close to that line (with I think we all agree that the balloon incident is bordering). The best clear sign is if the article about the event is less focused on the actual specifics of the event and more instead on what has happened outside of the actual event particularly to people/groups/etc that were not part of that original event. If you believe you've got a notable news story article and all you can really write about it is a timeline of events compiled from sources, you probably don't have a notable event. (This is not to say a description of the timeline of the event is not appropriate. Just that it generally should not be the bulk of the coverage for it).

This is very much related to the previous discussion we had about individual baseball games and why we don't typically include them. It is because, like the above, these are events that are isolated and have little impact elsewhere. The few games that we do cover have incidents that are significant to baseball or other factors (10 cent beer night is the only one I'm immediately aware of).

What this comes down to is that the best advice when creating articles about events is to be patient. No one will stop you if you create an article on a news event that may be below the community threshold, but it is better if you ensure you are well above it (this is what makes the Col. balloon incident AFD fascinating to watch as the article that was present when the AFD started was a significantly different article due to changes in the event as it occurred). If this is your thing, you can certainly start at Wikinews, and move over to WP when it is clear there's significance to the event. What's important to point out is that this is an encyclopedia and we should expected our pages to remain relatively stable; while electronic and can change at any time, we shouldn't be making rapid changes to an article to reflect changes in real-time. That's not to say this can't occur to existing articles. When we encourage the use of on-the-minute sources to build a new article, we start to encounter problems with reliable sources, original research, and the like, and thus likely will have problems later. By waiting until there is at least some lull in the event to gather more complete sources and confirm that the event is of significance, a better article will likely be obtained with a lot less work and a significantly lower chance of being taken to AFD. The balloon incident is a perfect example of how not to start a new article. If the article was created on Aug 20 (5 days after the event, and after most of the matter had been resolved), the article would likely be comparable to what it is now if not the same, but without about 300 edits and the AFD challenge. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I agree with the basic thrust of your comments, but disagree on basically all the points

Waiting for a 'lull' means sacrificing quality - not least in terms of the number of willing editors. An event should not be seen an 'encyclopaedic' just because it has stopped occuring (cf a volcano erupting for a long time). With Balloon Boy, you can;'t ignore that many of us KNEW it was a hoax - that's in no way WP:RS - but more a reflection of how the self-published blogosphere is less restricted (ie: likely to be sued) than the main the more reliable MSM. The point being, with the benefit of hindsight, Wikipedia is better for having allowed that article to persist.

However, I disagree that WikiNews should be seen as an alternative to Wikipedia 'in the meantime' - the purpose, and hence the content, should and will be different. Nothing should 'move across' from Wikinews to Wikipedia, any more than it 'moves across' from CNN to Wikipedia.

I believe the Balloon Incident is a good example of how a news related article should be started, it is better for the early getgo. And I fail to see how wikipedia would be better if it had not been created when it was (other than the distraction of the AfD, equally resolvable by delaying the AfD as by delaying the article creation)

What I'd love to see, if possible, is some objective criteria that can discriminate between an article on Corey Delaney, and an article on Balloon Boy. If that's not achievable - why not let both be created (and not be subject to heated AfD) during the event, and subject to review and deletion subsequently? --Jaymax (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is another place to construct an article that you believe will be appropriate but presently waiting for more info on to do so, and that is in user-space. And that can be even used to keep the history should it become necessary (with some editor help).

And I wouldn't say that waiting for a lull is absolutely necessary, but it is important to remember that this is an encyclopedia: we can be more up-to-date than En. Britannica, but we do not need to be, nor should we be, up-to-the-minute accurate. Again, the balloon incident is a strong example of how not to do this. The article on the 15th prior to the discovery of the hoax is a very different article in terms of the content. The state of the story, up until the child's location was found, was in a state of flux and was not sufficiently complete to provide accurate coverage: ok, so a child apparently took off in a weather balloon, and though the balloon landed, the boy was not found. That's a news story, but has no encyclopedic value. As soon as the story was assured by the media to be hoax, at that point it became something significant. In this case, it took what appears to be less than 24hr from breaking to reporting to affirm that, and certainly within 48hrs it was clearly a story of encyclopedic value. (and now 7 days later, it's no question with BB memes and quickly-made video games and t-shirts based off it). If the article was created after 2 days when the details of the "missing child" and the resulting hoax were established, then I think less people would have had an issue with it, and the subsequent coverage of the charges and the media analysis of themselves on the isusue would only strengthen it.

You say you "knew" it was a hoax, but that's the problem I have with that. Creating the article on that assumption is engaging in WP:OR. We should at least wait until news reports have settled down to provide a clear picture (as sources can widely vary in the few hours of a breaking news story as was the case with Michael Jackson's death), and that the core part of the story is reasonably complete - in this case, affirming the child's location as part of the hoax. Once there, and the story is assessed to be of encyclopedic value, then it can be created. There may be significant ongoing coverage of the implications or investigation of that event, but there is at least a core story to hang that onto. We should not be creating articles or adding significant details until the mass media has at least determined among themselves a common picture that we can then reference. That's the primary danger here with covering breaking stories as encyclopedic articles - you just can't.

And maybe that is what this points to. With the advent of new media and on-the-spot reporting, maybe we need to presume that articles written about a breaking news story from normally reliable web-based news sources should be considered inherently unreliable and unsuitable for notability evaluation because they are, by nature, primary sources accounting for events and being edited and compiled in real-time. Contrast that with a print story that occurs the next day that has had a chance to review and confirm events, or a summary article in a weekly news mag, or even a web article from the online publication a few days later. But those sources that appear while the event is occurring have little use on WP beyond documenting the event, just like fictional works only can serve to document the plot of the work. The reflection on the event, summary of what went down and what impact it had, need to be provided by more comprehensive sources that have had time to evaluate the situation. Whether that's during the lull of the story or a few days after it breaks, it is still needed. This wasn't the case for the balloon incident on Oct 15, but appears to the case on Oct 17, and thus the article should have been only created after that point. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You say you "knew" it was a hoax, but that's the problem I have with that. I have a problem with that aspect of it as well - for the record, I didn't create the article - but I activly went out looking for early WP:RS that might discuss the physics involved. The result of that buzz of activity is a better, reasonable quality article, available SOONER to people who might have use of an encyclpaedic article about the incident. FWIW - I could understand a policy or guideline that said 24h must pass after the initation of an 'event' before the article should be created - BUT - I think it would hurt the encyclopaedia more than it would help. I totally agree there is no requirement to be 'up to the minute accurate' - but within the bounds of what an encyclopaedia is, if there IS going to be any article for ANY still-continuing event, accuracy - in the sence of timeliness - is somewhat important. --Jaymax (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Before it was revealed it was a hoax, there were several different ways the story could of ended but they boil down to: balloon lands, boy was found, and we have the feel-good news story for the day; or balloon lands, boy is never found/found dead, and becomes tragic news. In the former case, the coverage would have lasted all of one day, and there would have been no reason for an article on it at all. In the latter, there may have been lawsuits, there may have been safety changes but unless that had the equivalent of something like AMBER Alerts, it would have been a quiet sad story. In both cases, neither would be the type of thing that we would cover in WP (maybe if there was a lawsuit against the company of that balloon, it would have been on their page as a facet of it, but certainly not its own article). Again, the point where the story became significant from an encyclopedic view was when it became about the hoax and media manipulation.

I have trouble with saying that there is an encyclopedic use of a article on a breaking news story because that is traditionally well and far outside the purposes of an encyclopedia. We are a tertiary source - we are summing up all of the coverage of notable topics. We are different from printed versions that we can respond much faster (say, in response to news of the death of a predominate figure), but at the same time, responding too fast is clearly going to fail on the tertiary nature of the work. If there is a significant number of people turning to WP to get their news (and not to something like WikiNews), they are using the work in a poor manner. We need to be writing articles to stand the test of the time, that will be relevant tomorrow as they will be a year from now and a decade from now. Which is why jumping the gun to write articles on breaking news stories is, in my opinion, futile, until the issue of relevancy is clearly shown. There's several other problems with that too in terms of how reliable your sources are and the rate that you'd have to work (it seems like much more effort than waiting a few days and using fewer but more complete sources on the matter, for example), but the gist is that we are not a current news source, we are document topics in a timeless manner, and the development of articles on news sources until we know that the story has met some threshold for relevance is a against WP's goal. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to avoid the hypothetical - I'm sure we can find an example of a real flash-in-the-pan story that had everyone hyped up and then disappeared in a puff of failed notability, if required.

Encyclpaedic aplicability or purpose wrt a notable breaking news event is no different to aplicability wrt any other notable event. In the case of Balloon Boy it was dragging together in one place encyclopaedic facts that provided background, context, understanding. I totally agree that people should not be turning to WP to get their news - but if you want to look up some background that has long (relatively) dropped out of the current news, or research the topic - having an article is no bad thing. For a notable event a year ago, one can either trawl through hundreds of online news artcles, most of which repeat the same thing, frequently incorrecty, or one can come to Wikipedia. For a notable event a day ago, one can either trawl through hundreds of online news artcles, most of which repeat the same thing, frequently incorrectly, or one should be able to come to Wikipedia - for exactly the same reasons - it's got nothing to do with the latest news, it's about being a complete encyclopaedia, not just ignoring something notable until it's a bit dusty. All of this is consistent with being a tertiary source - all of this is consistent with being an encyclopedia. The only reasons it's not 'traditional' for an encyclpedia to attempt to be current, have to do with paper, printing, logistcs and cost (in terms of paying writers). --Jaymax (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability (news events), which was a failed proposal, has been resurrected and is being revamped. Editors might like to contribute based on the points made above. Fences&Windows 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As a word of caution, I strongly recommend avoid doing this, and instead discuss changes that should be be made here or at WP:NOT. There's already concern there is too many sub-notability guidelines, so we should only be creating these if there is clear indication there needs to be more than what the GNG provides. That itself is not a problem for most news articles that are being questioned here. It is the fact that we use WP:NOT#NEWS to point out that notable news stories may not be appropriate for inclusion due to recentism and similar concerns. (for some reason the last part of this comment was cut off, I'm adding what I remember back in) --MASEM (t) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• The reason for writing the guideline is that there is confusion as to which existing policies and guidelines apply. Articles about events and the people connected to events are the most contested of all articles, and I think it is clear that WP:GNG is insufficient when it comes to events. WP:NOT#NEWS is too brief to act as a useful guide; for instance there is no real explanation of what 'routine coverage' or 'tabloid' means. A single place to lay out community consensus - or even a lack of consensus - is needed. Fences&Windows 17:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• First, I'm not against creating (better) guidance for such articles, but I do not believe this is a notability issue.
• There are two ways this problem breaks down:
  • If we assume that the coverage of breaking news events does meet the GNG, then you've already passed that threshold and the question of whether we include it is a factor of WP:NOT#NEWS and other guidelines. The sub-notability guidelines like WP:BIO are meant to handle cases where the GNG may not be passed and to add additional criteria to determine notability, but do not attempt to restrict a topic that is already notable by the GNG from being notable. So making another notability guideline in this case is not a good idea and will confuse the purpose of them.
  • If we assume, on the other hand, that coverage of breaking news stories are not sufficient in either their reliability or their nature (that they are primary sources and not secondary) as they fail the GNG. In that case, the issue is when news-coverge stories pass the line from being primary to secondary as to support notability by the GNG. That means it is still not a notability but a sourcing issue, and that's more in WP:RS department.
• I would say it is probably better to write general guidance on handling news stories - refering to notability, for sure, but also how to use sources appropriate for breaking stories, avoiding timeline and recentism approaches, working breaking stories in sandboxes until the story is cleary encyclopedic, and similar factors that affect all such articles. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Masem's approach, which seems to denigrate the notability guideline unnecessarily. The inclusion criteria for any article topic in Wikipedia will always be significant coverage from reliable secondary sources; WP:NOT#NEWS merely marks the boundry of what is not encyclopedic, which essentially boils down to the fact that article topics without notability are excluded from Wikipedia. The notability of breaking news stories is dependent on whether the coverage is signficant in accordance with WP:GNG, in the sense that the topic has been subject of commentary, criticism or analysis that provides context, not just facts or a barebones record of events. My reading of the Colorado balloon incident is that the article has not demonstrated that its subject matter is notable; there is a lack of commentary, and focus of the piece is still focused on trivial coverage of the event itself and the immediate response to it, rather than providing any explaination or criticism as to why the incident generated such a huge response. I would hazard a guess that this will happen as soon as the issue of Sensationalism relating to this event is addressed directly and in depth. The key to understanding this issue is whether coverage is significant (i.e. more than just a barebones record) or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)