Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Inherent notability

About this edit summary: Jinnai, can you point me to a specific notability guideline that claims that even in the absence of verifiability, a given topic should be considered notable? I can't even begin to imagine how an editor could write an article for which no sources exist.

I think that most editors would agree that nothing is inherently notable, and that we don't write or keep articles that cannot comply with WP:Verifiability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Meeting the standard of WP:V and meeting the (somewhat vague) standard of "significant coverage" are two different things. There are plenty of subjects that I think pass the first but fail the second and yet they have Wikipedia articles. Location (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Per WP:BK the following is sufficient for a book: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." E.g. Franz Kafka worked for a workers' insurance company and did a great deal of lobbying against insecure machines that tended to cut off workers' hands. If he had written a 12-page booklet in an attempt to raise awareness among employers (I don't remember if he did, but I know he designed a poster or something for that purpose), then it might well be notable under this guideline. (As long as it passes WP:BK#Threshold standards, I suppose.) And it would be quite possible that no biographer ever wrote more than a one-sentence footnote about the book. Hans Adler 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

... and plenty of people pass WP:PROF, while we can't say more than where they are currently employed and what they published. Hans Adler 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the error is in these guidelines, not in your change. There should be an absolute rule that we never ever allow an article about a topic that we have no usable sources about. (There might be plenty of reliable sources that are unusable for a funny reason such as an injunction. See my comment above under #Sufficiency for concrete examples.) Hans Adler 01:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N =/= WP:V. Period.陣内_Jinnai 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very terse statement, open to interpretation. In case you misunderstood what I said: My point is: If WP:V implies that an article about a topic must be empty because we can only write original research about it, then WP:N should say that it's also not notable. Hans Adler 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no need. If there are no reliable sources then it fails WP:V. We do not need instruction creep.陣内_Jinnai 02:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we do need to have a section about inherited notability in this guideline, as it is such a big issue, both in terms of inclusion criteria at SNG level, and in deletion debates. My understanding is that it is the general consensus that notability is not inherited, and I would support the addition of such wording to this guideline, that it would be a serious omission not to provide guidance on this matter. We have had various debates about this before (see discussions at Archive 33 and Archive 36, and I think we should section along these lines. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and think Hans' statement above is an excellent illustration of the problem. If we have a professor for whom we "can't say more than where they work and what they published", we shouldn't have a separate article on them. The subguidelines can never loosen the requirements of N, they only show some areas where those requirements are likely to have been met. If they were not in fact met, though, and research turns out there's little to no sourcing on a subject, we shouldn't have an article on it. Notability is always from sources, never because "It's a...". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's how it should be. But currently we have a problem with hordes of radical inclusionists who are trying to force preservation of even the tiniest stub with no chance of expansion if they can get away with it. I guess it's a fear of setting a precedent or something.

• "Hordes of radical inclusionists"? Gee!
  I could not ask for a better proof of the damage that the "notability requirement" is doing to Wikipedia.
  Please, please, can anybody tell me what does Wikipedia gain by deleting an article on a verifiable but "non-notable" topic?
  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this happens because overall the rules aren't clear enough and the outcomes of AfDs are primarily seen as a political thing depending on the relative strengths of two parties rather than the correct interpretation of policy. Hans Adler 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Echoing some of the above. Inherited / inherent notability doesn't exist. That would imply Wikipedia (a tertiary source) being the only place source that discusses the topic. WP:BK appears (to me) to be broken in this matter. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone here think that any topic is inherently notable, regardless of what sources exist? That is, can anyone name a single subject for which you believe no significant sources exist, but yet in your opinion, the subject is so clearly encyclopedic and such an important subject that you would argue in favor of having an article about it anyway?
  It's my impression that verifiability is generally taken as a necessary precondition for notability (so that only verifiable subjects are notable), but perhaps I've misunderstood the community's views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• The closest thing I can think of is anything that is "big" but as of yet only known to a relative few due to an embargo or due to government censorship. For example, as the super-secret intelligence agency of the United States, the National Security Agency was certainly notable well before its existence was known by the general public. It fails WP:V and but for the ignorance or complicity of media outlets would easily pass WP:N. Because it failed WP:V it could not have had an article before its existence leaked to the general public. Well, that, and Wikipedia didn't exist yet. Other items include living species where the existence is either unknown to man or the news of the existence is under a media embargo. These species will likely have articles added within 24 hours of the embargo's lifting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Egg slicer has lots of trivial mentions in reliable sources (basically in dictionaries and cookbooks), but any non-trivial mentions are likely to be in documents that are not formally published. Yet it's significant enough to have 6 interwiki links. Hans Adler 01:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Interwiki" links are irrelevant and not significant of anything - certainly not in any way an indication of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What you are missing is that I am not !voting "keep" in an AfD or DRV. Here we are discussing what the rules should be, not applying them. Many interwiki links and many constructive edits by diverse editors both indicate that this is an article that has its place here. You are probably the first person seeing this article who disagrees. [1] (Since you seem to love rules: The way you did it was a clear WP:POINT violation. No notification to this thread or to me, although I had just said something positive about the article. You could know that I would object and you had no reason to believe it's on my watchlist. And the reason "no sources, no assertion of notability" was purely formal. I had just mentioned that sources exist.) If our rules keep us from covering such a topic, then we must change the rules, not delete the article. Hans Adler 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not missing anything, and prodding that article resulted in an editor adding sources to the article that establish the notability of the subject. That certainly does not qualify as 'disrupting Wikipedia to make a point'. The encyclopedia was improved, not disrupted, but yes, a point was made: your claim that it is for some unknown, unstated reason, 'inherently notable' has been shown to be without merit. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

??? "has lots of trivial mentions in reliable sources (basically in dictionaries and cookbooks)". That's what I wrote after doing what must have been essentially the same Google search that Glenfarclas did. You could have done it as well. Or asked me to add the sources I was referring to. And the two new sources don't establish notability per the wording of WP:N. However, I think I have found a novel argument for the egg slicer (see below in a minute). (No, doesn't work.) Hans Adler 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't. If there aren't any reliable sources a topic shouldn't have an article. Unfortunately, there are some editors who believe that every type of some things (such as towns) are notable. I remember once an AfD on a town was kept even though there were no reliable sources presented that the location described was inhabited, was in fact an incorporated place, and was notable as such. The only reference was an appearance on Google Earth of the name of the place with what looked like a barren area below it. So yes, some do believe notability is inherited, even though I staunchly oppose that idea. ThemFromSpace 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of that stuff would be solved by lists/redirects, anyway. List of towns in Foo County, Bar, List of small kitchen appliances (for the egg slicer), and so on. There's no reason to have permastubs. If it works as part of a larger whole, merge/redirect, if not, straight redirect or delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

At most maybe some widely accepted gaming terms like Dungeon (role-playing game). If there are non-trivial sources describing it, they'd be hard to find.陣内_Jinnai 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, those editors that argue that motorways, towns, athletes, accademics, and other topics that are "automatically inherited", "widely accepted", "too important to ignore" or "supported by consensus" and should be the subject of a standalone article in the absence of any verifable evidence of notability are doing so because they have strongly held opinions rather acceting the rationale behind WP:N, which is that topics have to be "noted" if they are to be included in Wikipedia.
To say that one topic inherits notability by way of some arbitary association between the two are basically restating the well rehearsed arguments that certain topic should have their own article because they have subjective importance, not because they have actually been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG. Likethe two weavers in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes they have nothing to support their arguments that the absence of coverage is equivalent to nakedness, or in the context of Wikipedia, the absense of coverage means you can't write an article that is even of half-decent quality or goes even half way to meeting Wikipedia's content policies.
In my view, WP:NRVE, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:IKNOWIT are closely connected (or may be the same issue, but their approach differs), and this gudeline for some reason spells out the first of these three points , but ignores the other two. I think we have to expand this guideline to include the generally accepted and intuative principles set out in WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:IKNOWIT, so we can put an end to the subjective detates along the lines that every town/road/high school/Harry Potter character should have their own article just because one or more edits think "everyone acknowledges this by consensus". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding it won't stop it. It'll just add fuel to the fire as it would clearly go against some consensus seen in the last RfC compromise.陣内_Jinnai 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Having a look at that discussion, it was found to have a clear consensus that the requirements here cannot be overridden by SNGs, so I'm not sure exactly what it is you're referring to. That is of course correct—we must have substantive sources in order to write full articles, and there must be enough sourcing for a full (not permastub) article. Subguidelines are intended only to say where such sources are likely to exist, not to let anything off the hook if they in fact don't. Sometimes cleanup does get obstructed for a while by bloc voting or similar tactics, as it did a while for fiction and schools (and still does happen for some fictional works and high schools), but it always eventually gets done. We should keep it clear in the meantime, though, that it does need to get done in every case where substantive third party reliable coverage cannot be found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists can be exempted from the GNG. Moreso that SNGs can outline sources that assert notability. Both of those kind of conflict with the above. Spinout articles clearly had no-consensus. All three proposals were below the general line drawn for consensus and if you read more into them a lot of those that agreed with each had caveats. Clearly there is no consensus that spinout articles cannot have inherited notability.陣内_Jinnai 07:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterizations. Dlabtot (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate because you can't say that it was clearly agreed that every article required notability. The numbers just don't support that (well i guess you can, but you'd just be trying to force something through that doesn't have consensus).陣内_Jinnai 21:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability is the consensus. Unless there is verifiable evidence that a topic has actually been noted in accordance with WP:GNG, then it ain't notable. Everthing else (inherent notability, subjective importance) is just unsubstantiated speculation based on personal opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not true Gavin. While WP:V has consensus, the WP:GNG doe not for everything out there. If it did, there would not be so much contriversy. You don't see that kind of controversy about WP:V FE. And itsn't not objective either. That is pure propaganda. All of those criteria spelled out are subjective criteria. What is independent FE, varies depending upon who you ask. What is a RS and what isn't as well. Notability is subjective, no ifs, ands or buts about it because its foundation is subjective.陣内_Jinnai 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your unilateral declaration of a lack of consensus carries absolutely no weight as far as I'm concerned. Dlabtot (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said Jinnai. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User essay: Inherent Notability as a slang term

User:Davidwr/Inherent Notability as a slang term. Comments welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy reading essays by Wikipedians and the fact that people are trying to come up with solutions for problems. When identifying something as a problem, I think it would make sense to wikilink or link to a diff that shows an example (or many) to give evidence of the problem and the extent of the problem, albeit without mentioning or linking usernames in the essay in which case it could possibly be considered a Wikipedia:Attack page. I don't know that I've seen "inherent notability" used that much, but perhaps it is. I have seen the argument that the notability or some other guideline or policy has been met by something in a "self-evident" way, which is probably fallacious (and maybe self-fellatious) more often than not. And yet when it comes to something like this: "'I want to add an article about the President of North Korea, he must be notable.' So, find citations," that does seem to be "nit-picking the obvious" to me, maybe not the best example. Шизомби (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But I think that's the whole point, is to "nit-pick the obvious". By suggesting it's not a good example, we're buying in to the notion of "inherent notability", ie. we are agreeing that the President of North Korea is inherently notable and does not require citations. I agree wholeheartedly with David's assertion that notability is never inherent and it is never okay to write about a subject without valid citations, no matter how obvious it might seem. Now, I do have some sympathy with the folks who argue that some topics are inherently encyclopedic and thus don't have to be "notable" but that is for another discussion ... Shereth 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I accept the term "inherent notability" as applied to something like a nation's President, but I'll accept here it for the sake of argument. Nations' leaders have been a subject for traditional encyclopedias for who knows how long, and Wikipedia is not reinventing the encyclopedia in respect to choosing to exclude some topics that had been specifically covered in them. That Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is one of the five pillars, about as fundamental a statement there is. One could complain that saying "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia" is circular logic of some kind, and there may be some truth to that, but it's pretty basic that editors here accept the truth of that statement? I agree, if something is fundamentally encyclopedic, something encyclopedias have almost always or always had entries for, that doesn't mean the article can be unsourced. All articles need sources. However, the sources are needed to meet requirements of validity, reliability and so on. One or more sources speaking directly to notability, employed to "establish" notability are not needed for such a topic. If such an article existed without sources, and someone did not have the time or motivation to find sources for it, tagging it for sources would make sense. Tagging it for notability would be absurd. Where notability comes into play is for subjects that have not ever been covered by an encyclopedia before, even if they are in some way analogous. For example, while an encyclopedia would have an article on the current Pope or Presiding Bishop (LDS Church), it would not have an article for some religion created right this minute, nor an article about the creator of that religion. Even though religions and religions' creators and current leaders are fundamentally things encyclopedias cover, when it comes to addressing something new (call it a neo[greek word for article]ism, to halfway coin a protologism) religion, a notability guideline is needed. At the same time, notability should not be used indiscriminately as a weapon to delete things one does not like or have an interest in or to be a disruptive editor; it has to be balanced in a reasonable way with meta:Wiki is not paper. Шизомби (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well like I said, I have a lot more sympathy for the argument that some topics fundamentally belong in an encyclopedia, notability notwithstanding; hence the last point in my statement. However, while the terms "notable" and "encyclopedic" may be somewhat interchangeable in broader arguments, under the specific lens that is Wikipedia policy/guidelines, these concepts are not one and the same. I personally am a proponent of the notion that some topics can and should be deemed "fundamentally encyclopedic" but, historically speaking, arguments that a topic is/is not "encyclopedic" have been rejected when discussing inclusion criteria. Shereth 20:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Stating something is fundamentally encyclopedic shouldn't be used indiscriminately or without explanation. Suppose a new President of Wikipedistan has been elected. All encyclopedias have entries for Wikipedistan and its President, however being print-based they don't have one for the new one yet. A Wikipedian creates a stub for the article without any sources. Another Wikipedian tags the article for notability, or worse yet takes it to AfD with the argument NN. Deleting the tag or commenting "Keep: encyclopedic" makes sense, but saying "X encyclopedia(s) have articles on the President of Wikipedistan" ought to be decisive, and the vandal or disruptive editor who said it was NN should get a Boot to the Head. In the case of a new religion, or something then it's like a neologism, a neo[greek word for article, somebody must know!]ism needs attestation in Wiktionary's terms, RS and so on in WP's terms. Someone could still legitimately argue it's encyclopedic, but in this case the argument has to be made for how analogous it is to traditional encyclopedia coverage. If the number of followers of this religion is similar to that of one which has been covered by an encyclopedia before, a RS regarding that number, for example, would be pretty good evidence of notability/encyclopedicity. The more of a stretch the analogy is, perhaps the stronger the case for notability may have to be, unless consensus establishes guidelines for such things, in which case one provides sources showing it meets or is somehow closely analogous to the guideline. However, preventing or undoing article creation and development when articles have met V and RS and so on and doing so mainly or solely on the basis of notability seems to be largely at odds with the "fundamental project of building an encyclopedia" (emphasis mine) and "Wiki is not paper" so it should perhaps be considered to be disruptive more often than it is and admins should perhaps be rejecting the (POV?) claims of NN more often than they are, even if there is "consensus" in the AfD regarding notability/deletion. Not all the time, not necessarily most of the time, but more often than at present. Шизомби (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be straying further from the original topic ("inherent notability") and appears on the road to becoming a discussion on the value of notability altogether; as such, I won't belabor the issue much longer. I will point out that the two policies/guidelines that you point out (WP:V and WP:RS) are intimately connected to WP:N; in most cases, a subject that has satisfied V and RS will also satisfy N. All N is really about is creating a minimum bar for inclusion, so that Wikipedia does not merely become an indiscriminate dump of information. I agree with you that "Wikipedia is not paper", but Wikipedia is also not the Internet. As to presuming nominations based on notability alone are disruptive, that attitude is displaying a failure to assume good faith in an editor's intentions; unless the behavior becomes a pattern or there is some other underlying behavioral issues, there is never good cause to assume someone's nomination of an article for deletion is in any way trollish or disruptive. Shereth 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not the internet; it's funny nobody has written WP:NOTINTERNET, but maybe that's obvious enough for everyone. I also agree it is not meant to be (but sometimes is) an indiscriminate dump of information, and that a minimum bar of inclusion of some kind is needed. When addressing subjects for which there is no guideline, or the guideline is vague or openly in dispute, I usually feel rather lost and want a clear(/er) guideline, but when working towards that one sometimes starts running up against complaints of WP:Avoid instruction creep. NN-only noms certainly are not automatically acts of disruption when they explain the NN rationale. I have no theory as to what percentage of them are not done in GF, just that some of them are and in such cases AGF is not a suicide pact. If all the nom states is WP:JNN that's not a very good way to state a reason and does not indicate WP:BEFORE was followed and as such could be considered disruptive, but is not vandalism. Anyhow:

• "inherently notable" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion 2,907 results
• "inherent notability" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion 643 results
• "self evident" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion 349 results

In case anybody was curious about frequency or finding examples, as I was. Шизомби (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The results are interesting, in that they suggest to me that there are two strands to the argument WP:NOTINHERITED. The standard argument used in deletion debates is that a particular article topic inherits notability from another (e.g. the Wife of Caesar is notable by marraige), either by close association or by categorisation without having to provide any evidence of the topic actually being noted in accordance with WP:GNG. But the cheaper version of this argument, in the sense that you don't even have to argue that there is a close association with a more notable topic, is that a topic is inherently notable, i.e. a topic inherits notability from iteself. So instead of arguing that the Wife of Caesar is notable by marraige, the argument is shorted to her notability is unquestionable (e.g. the Wife of Caesar is beyond reproach). Not only is it a cheap argument because you don't have to provide any evidence to support it, but also because you don't even have to provide a reasonable argument that establishes a connection to a a more notable topic. Furthermore, any editor who questions the opinion of one or more editors who say an article topic is inherently notable can be accused of bad faith. Inherent notability is to Wikipedia's guidelines what The Emperor's New Clothes is to fairytales - both are fanciful stories, which probably explains why one is popular in deletion debates, and the other as a bedtime story. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In my mind, inherited notability would be an argument that since foo is notable, and bar is closely related to foo, bar must therefore be notable as well. Inherent notability claims that all foo are notable, and bar is a foo, therefore bar is notable. The logic is sound if and only if all foo are notable, a premise which I personally reject. Shereth 18:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There are cases where all foo are notable, but in those cases inherent notability isn't the issue, as each member of foo is notable in its own right. The issue of "inherent notability" in practice is "almost all foo are notable, x is a foo, why waste time proving it is notable?" Of course, the answer in most cases where the item is notable, in proving WP:V you are very likely going to prove WP:N. Suppose in the early days of the Wiki someone put up an unreferenced article that simply said "Zachary Taylor was a President of the United States." Any effort to prove it is true would not doubt prove that WP:N had been met. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. Here's the part that's always been a head-scratcher in my opinion : The logic is that almost all foo are notable, therefore there is no point in proving notability for any given member of the set. An editor scrutinizes bar, a member of that set, and cannot find any evidence of notability, so therefore nominates the article for deletion. The nomination gets shot down with "Keep, all foo are notable!" and the editor as often as not gets chastised for daring to nominate an "inherently notable" subject for deletion. The root of my point is that even if almost all of a given subset of articles are notable, that itself is no argument to give a subject a pass on notabiilty when such cannot be proved. Shereth 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's because the RFA is flawed. If you are nominating something for deletion where you know almost all the members of the category are notable, you have a duty to research the subject first and report the results of your research on the article's talk page, then no less than a week or two later, at the RFA. "Zachary Taylor - non-notable President of the United States" will get you shot down. "Zachary Taylor - non-notable President of the Untied States. See talk page showing complete lack of non-trivial coverage of him or his presidency" with a detailed report of your valiant attempts to find significant non-trivial coverage will go a lot farther at AFD, or will result in article rescue if someone finds sources showing notability. Either is a good outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of a secondary point here, but isn't asking a nominator at AfD to provide a "detailed report" of their "valiant attempts" asking a lot? How does one "document" on a talk page the fact that they looked for something but didn't find it, except by saying they looked for something but didn't find it? AGF should apply here - if a nominator says they looked for sources and can't find them, we should take that at face value rather than expecting them to prove a negative ... Shereth 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to davidwr, why would anyone be nominating something for deletion if it was "inherently notable"? If it is universally understood that a article topic was inherently notable, surely nobody would dare nominate the article for deletion in the first place?
I think the obvious hole in this argument is very much like The Emperor's New Clothes, in that inherent notability is based on belief, not verfiable evidence that you can see for yourself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of goes with what I was saying - anything that really is inherently notable should, in fact, have an abundance of sources demonstrating notability, not a paucity thereof. If sources to show that a subject is notable cannot be found then the argument it is inherently notable is flat out false at that point. Shereth 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity

Should the the following section be inserted into WP:N to explain better to both article writers and inexperienced AFD participants that it's not a matter of "getting boxes checked", but that the reliability and independence of the sources cited in an article are important? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

This RFC has been called using mis-leading language. The text below has been in the guidance for four years, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions in Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 37 and this discussion. Could all editors ensure they base their opinion on the facts rather than the misleading question this RFC asks about whether this section should be inserted. Thanks. Hiding T 14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity In some instances, publication in a reliable source is not actual good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. The barometer of notability is whether third parties in the wider world have independently considered the topic significant. Paid material, self-promotion, solicitation, and product placement are not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

Credible writers who have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter – are good evidence, but the nature of the material must be examined to consider if it shows genuine independent interest, or is more likely to result from indiscriminate coverage or promotion.

In particular:

• If an interested party could readily obtain similar coverage by promotional activity; or
• The publisher would grant similar coverage to many or all venues, groups, products, people or entities in the field, without evidence of much discrimination; or
• The publisher seems unlikely to have carefully verified the published article's factual accuracy

then the resulting text is unlikely to be good evidence.

Discussion

Please give your thoughts. Remember that this is a discussion.

• Weak oppose- although I broadly agree with the proposal, I think it's unnecessary instruction creep. Reyk _YO! 21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think it belongs in another page. It was hard work to make WP:N contained and somewhat defined. This tendency to think of "notability" as a mainspace content guideline catchall is not helpful to newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused—what is notability, if not, well, a "mainspace content guideline catchall"? That's actually one of the best descriptions I've heard of it, so I'm rather surprised to see that used in a negated sense. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you are joking? Yes, many people have thought of notability as a mainspace content guideline catchall, with meaning to match whatever they think it should mean. You were with us here back in 2006. what do you really think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• RfC's are not 'polls' they are Request for Comments. I would comment, but not if my answer is going to be mischaracterized as a response to a poll. Dlabtot (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I support Dlabtot's sentiment. HHOS. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Why on earth are we discussing this twice? Hiding T 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Start this off as an essay and let it grow organically from there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Please also see #SPIP where this was discussed. Hiding T 10:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• It should be pointed out that this RfC isn't for the addition of the wording but rather for the removal of the wording. This wording has been in WP:N for years. Some of the opinions above seem to imply that they believe the RfC is asking whether the section should be added to the guidelines.

That would be the text that says "Should the the following section be inserted into WP:N" --Jaymax (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anyhow, I very strongly support this because there is a definite link between notability and promotion. Most everybody agrees that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a promotional medium, and the notability guidelines are one of the strongest tools we have for preventing Wikipedia from being abused for the sake of promotion. The issue of promotion needs to be addressed here in order to give proper attribution for why we have these guidelines and what harm may be caused by not having them. This single issue is why I support the guidelines as strongly as I do. If a product, or company, or website actively seeks out Wikipedia in order to become notable, chances are they aren't worth talking about. If a product or a company or person doesn't need its Wikipedia article in order to be famous than likely they already have recieved the coverage about them necessary to write an article. Removing this relationship would be a great disservice to the notability guidelines and the idea that Wikipedia is not a medium of advertising. ThemFromSpace 07:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support (also involved in the prior discussion of this). There are too many cases of commercial promotion, where product placement in media is "just another checkbox to get a Wikipedia article". This section would expand on wording that's always been in the guideline, but poorly explained in a footnote. We want to assess whether the world has taken notice, not just whether there has been better (or indiscriminate) promotional activity. This section focuses the issue of notability very clearly, by asking editors to consider the cites as evidence (not proof) of notability. It's worth explaining the most usual situations where publication may not actually be good evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm going to support this. If there are other discussions elsewhere, that's fine too - but I think the RfC is a good idea here. We have "mywikibiz.com" and "business.wikia.com" for these type of things. While I strongly support the WP:PRESERVE concept and building/adding to our encyclopedia project; the key word here is "encyclopedia". There are tons of "yellow pages" out there to use - and I think if we allow ourselves to be diluted into a "list your business here" type of project, it will degrade the quality and believability of our efforts. While there are certainly many business that are notable, we shouldn't be a "listas" project for any start-up group that comes along. Notability needs to be viewed in a historic context, not a "Johnny-come-lately" or "flash-in-the-pan" threshold. — Ched :  ?  10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose because this belongs at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, not here. I might go along with a para here that references text there, but this proposal is about what should be considered a reliable source in the context of the information. Once something passes WP:RS it is and should remain considered appropriate to WP:N. Good motive, and perhaps required, but wrong guideline. --Jaymax (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Jaymax - I think what we're talking about here is what is and is not notable. Granted, references do support notability, but I think the issue at hand is WP:N, not WP:RS. At least that's what I'm commenting on. — Ched :  ?  11:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was also going to disagree. The issue is relevant to notability in its own right. It's important within the notability guideline to clarify what kind of coverage is unsuitable or poor quality as evidence of notability, not just what would be a reliable source. The concern here is to draw attention to the fact that not everything in a reliable source, is good evidence of notability. Users should consider whether the coverage shows the world taking note, which is different from whether the source is reliable; reliable sources can often contain material that is poor evidence of notability. That needs explaining as part of notability. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How come something be a reliable secondary source for content, but not for notability. Please provide some examples to test against. What might accomodate, is to say that primary sources (which is effectively what this discusses) can never be used to establish notability. What I can't fathom is why these rules, which would fit extremely well in WP:RS (if not, why not?) should need to be duplicated in both places. (ie: if they are eliminated as WP:RS then they are automatically eliminated from WP:N --Jaymax (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple (though not germane) example would be a directory. A listing showing the subject attended school XYZ or performed in play ABC could support material in the article but obviously isn't detailed, independent coverage. Protonk (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) It's very common to have exactly that situation. A number of users look at the source and go "that's in a reliable source", and don't realize the issue is whether it is good evidence of the world taking notice. Think about this section as clarifying the need for users assessing notability of a topic, to critically consider the material's value as evidence of the world taking notice, even if it does appear in a reliable source. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks both - I get that. I see the point. I need to come back to this in the morning. I'm not sure such a directory should qualify as a secondary source however - if it currently does, I think there's a solid argument to change that. And WP:RS relates to the information in context - I still think there is a better way to handle this, perhaps by explicitly defining such sources as primary sources, and explicitly excluding primary sources from WP:N - that helps in both places. This also ties in to Gavin's comment below on WP:NTEMP - it needs expansion (I suspect) but any secondary source should contain genuine "commentary, criticism, ___?, or analysis" and not originate from a party connected to the subject (ie: no rehashed press releases, directory listings, etc) - sort of thing. --Jaymax (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support - we have inclusionist who would actually argue against applying such guidance. They would view any self-contributed google hit as a secondary source sufficient to warrant notability. So, this guidance is both appropriate and very needed. Maybe it would discourage self-promoters from submitting articles about themselves and/or their businesses or books. Wikipedia is becoming one more product placement checkbox. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Plenty of RS repeat press releases verbatim without fact checking, but that absolutely cannot be classed as prima facia evidence of self-promotion and non-notability. Depending on the standing and independence of the RS, their decision to publish the material can absolutely be cited as evidence of sources taking notice in and of itself. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Something like this has been needed for a good long time. Very simply, we're seeing spammers become more sophisticated, citing the "sources" they've generated by their own efforts as evidence of "notability". When the possibility of commercial conflict of interest arises, notability needs to require more. Either people without a professional stake in the field need to be paying some attention to it; or if only pros in the field are likely to have heard of it, their independent judgment needs to have recognized it as historically or technically important. Recognition of mere existence is not enough in that context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• I am not one who cries CREEP anytime someone suggests an addition to a policy (in fact, I have unsuccessfully tried a number of times). But this just seems to be a case of combined WP:COI with WP:RS, restating a bit from each, but not saying anything new. The sources described in the addition are already recognized as unreliable, since any reliable source would do real fact-checking. This addition allows people to start questioning the source for a reliable source (which may not be readily available). I think we can spot self-promotion very well, even if the "paid editors" do their best to wikify some promotional garbage, as I have seen in many AfD's. Most regurgitations of press releases in reliable sources are retstaed in a sentence or two, like, "Company A just signed a contract with Company B," but rarely do these sources write entire articles about the company, which is covered by the "trivial mention" in this policy. So, I believe this would be detrimental to the project. Angryapathy (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The phenomenon is real, and plagues even generally reliable sources. Look at the success that some US administrations have had getting their paid employees to write freelance articles for various otherwise reliable news sources. Also frequent are stories that are essentially recapitulations of the content of press releases—these may even fall under the byline of full-time staff writers, and yet they don't reflect any independent sourcing, or (when deadlines loom and column-inches are needed) independent editorial discretion. ^Bongo_matic 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too much WP:CREEP. "independant" already covers this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This area needs better explanation to reduce the known problems of poor understanding pointed out above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It also looks like a power grab by the deletionist side. The "in particular"s could be used to justify excluding a ton of independent coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That must be why I'm supporting it. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clarify Peregrine Fisher, are you aware the abofve text has been in the guidance for the past four years and that this RFC has been called disingenuously? Would that change your view that this is some sort of "power grab"? Hiding T 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the criterion already asks for "independent" coverage, and that deals with the situation well enough. What I think would happen with the proposed change, is that independent substantial reviews of a product from whatever source would be considered as promotional and rejected--and such reviews are the main way of showing a product is notable, I think it extremely important that we remove promotionalism from Wikipedia, much more important than removing just marginal notability, but this is not the way to do it--it is much too broad. I am aware of the sophistication of spammers, but we already reject PR and material based on PR as evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clarify DGG, are you aware the abofve text has been in the guidance for the past four years and that this RFC has been called disingenuously? Hiding T 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Reyk and PF. I agree with the objective of the proposal but I'm distrustful of attempts to litigate the problem away. I do want to disagree somewhat with DGG. There are questions raised about the meaning of "independent", both good faith and less so in many AfD and merge discussions. If we can agree on a definition of independent here, it may be beneficial to make sure that WP:N reflects that agreement. But the supplied text strikes me as too specific. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Both per DGG and because I think the three "in particular"'s would be interpreted far too widely to exclude valid sources from helping to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The current wording is too vague and so seems to be an invitation for editors to indulge in improper speculation as to the motives of authors. If detailed advice seems required to explain what independent means then it should be more specific. For example, we might say that copy which is labelled Advertising feature is not sufficiently independent for our purposes. I doubt that this level of detail is required for a guideline which is intended to be interpreted in a commonsense way. We are not writing a legal statute. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

of course there are questions about the meaning of "independent" It's a very tricky criterion. When I personally give advice I say "references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases." The hard part is telling when something is so greatly derived from a Press release it must be rejected; on the other hand, press releases from some places are fairly reliable sources of information--even for notability. The Reliable vs. not-reliable distinction is not sharp; too many of our policies are worded as if it were, but there is no way out of using judgment in individual cases. One cannot make an encyclopedia using artificial intelligence, or rules so inflexible that it might as well be (I think this is sometimes called the reverser Turing test). DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support in general. To give an example, entertainment sections of many journals considered reliable sources are chock-full of material which has not been written with a critical eye. This is because journals often provide this as a service to the community by acting as 'What's On' guides. Commercial write-ups, written by the event promoter, are very frequently taken and published verbatim in the same way as press releases are. Such material should be used with great care. The tone of most of these is promotional. Raising the bar is very necessary, IMHO. The fact that the wording in the guideline has remained unchanged for years is of no great relevance, for consensus can change. Furthermore, marketing techniques have evolved from the 'in your face' to being much more subliminal, so WP editors need to wake up to that. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support This is already in the footnote. It needs to be unburied. If anything, the wording here needs to be clearer. Miami33139 (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support this seems like just common sense, but since notability is a topic that tends to cause confusion, clarification is a good thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not happy with the current article text, but I'm certainly not happy with reducing what we have to "The barometer of notability is whether third parties in the wider world have independently considered the topic significant". "Third parties in the wider world" have very different motivations for information inclusion than WP.  HWV258.  03:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessing whether third parties independently view the topic as significant (or worthy of notice), as evidenced by their writing significantly about it -- and indeed this very section we're discussing -- has been part of the definition all the way along. For example in 2006 [2]:

• "...the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether 'the world' has judged a topic to be notable..."
• "Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to an encyclopaedia article... The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself... have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it...."

Far from "reducing" anything, this has been the same explanation since the guideline reached a stable form some 3 years ago. Notability is precisely about evidence the wider world has taken notice, and the quality of the evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"wider world" is either meaningless, or against fundamental policy. A subject is judged a notable based on being notable in its field, as judged of course by third party sources. To take an example from an area I do not work on, chess players are notable to those who write about chess, and are many more people than the few famous international champions covered by general purpose mass media. I care very much that proper sources only be used to establish notability and to support opinion. I have argued very strenuously at AfDs for deletion on the basis of sources being based on press releases and the like, and speedy-deleted many hundreds of articles as G11, promotional where such were the only sources. "Independent" has caused some confusion between the meanings independent of the subject, and independent of each other" -- I think both considerations are relevant and should be stated. I have also argued for deletion on the basis of sources simply copying one another. in the way newspapers do. (there's been less of that lately, as even Google News makes that distinction). If it has been unchallenged for 3 years, it's basically because nobody has been making arguments based on the wider world wording. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing a real conflict here, actually. The chess players you're describing have been noted by the wider world. They are in books published by independent third parties, who wrote about them because they judged the players worthy of note (rather than because they were paid or prevailed upon to do so), etc. That's "the world" taking note, exactly as this guideline's said since 2006. That said, if the adjective "wider" seems unhelpful ("meaningless") it's probably a personal view of any reader if it adds or detracts in clarity; and open to compromise. Setting that aside, the principle's right though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Press releases and articles/reviews which are little more than regurgitated press releases are not notable. Independent articles written by third parties are notable. Samboy (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this as instruction creep. Blatant self-promotional sources are regularly laughed out of AFD, I see no reason to add yet more red tape around the process just to formalise that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
• Support. One man's instruction creep is another man's "oh, so that's why they removed it" moment. Just because it is precedent doesn't mean that everyone is familiar with it, and uncodified precedent leads to wiki-lawyering leads to WP:BITE-ing newbies. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. What's in the guideline already on this subject is more than adequate.--Father Goose (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poorly worded WP:CREEP that's better explained elsewhere, e.g. WP:RS. For instance "an interested party could readily obtain similar coverage by promotional activity". How do you propose we determine that? Or "The publisher seems unlikely to have carefully verified the published article's factual accuracy." Publishers often don't do that. They may have someone else copyedit the article or book, but the factual accuracy for many technical publications rests with the author. Even in academia, the publisher doesn't do that. The peer reviewers do it, but they are independent of the publisher. The current text at WP:SPIP already excludes obviously promotional sources in much simpler language: Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Pcap ping 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Payment to write an artcile could be considered "incentive" and most professional writers are paid. --Pleasantville (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inherent notability - Proposed wording

Here is more or less the wording I proposed in Archive 36:

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. Significant 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 is not inherited, since a topic's inclusion as a standalone article is based on significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, not on an article 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. Avoid spliting articles if the there is no evidence that the new article topic isn't notable.

I think this wording would enhance this guideline. Would any care to express their support for this wording or propose an improvement to it?--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I think the notability guideline currently does not mention at all that articles may exist for a reason other than notability. It's important not give this point too much weight, because a key function of the notability guideline is to explain to enthusiastic new editors that their favourite restaurant does not deserve an article. The last thing we want is that they start arguing: "Well, OK, so perhaps it's not an article. But this is a subarticle of pizza." I think with this formulation that's not going to happen. Hans Adler 11:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. We are an encyclopedia attempting to catalog human knowledge without being indiscriminate. To that end, there are certain classes of topics that inherently we should be covering due to that purpose. These topics would include things like nations and major political subdivisions (states, provinces), past and present top-level world leaders, chemical elements, etc. Mind you, these are a rather tiny number compared to all else that we cover, and the reason that we cover them is that they are significant to human knowledge and are already will likely have plenty of sourcing information. That is, we know they inherent notability, but there's likely plenty of sources to meet notability to begin with.
  But it is important to recognize this does exist because there is consensus through general allowances for such articles that inherent notability exists for other classes where sourcing is not immediate - things like any government-recognized village or town, or specific species of flora and fauna. There are likely thousands of articles in these two classes alone that have no immediate evidence of notability, but because people consider coverage of these topics necessary as part of the encyclopedia, they have been included, and will likely remain stubby for years. Now, I'm not saying that there are many classes of topics like this: the rules provided by the SNG are (should be) less all inclusive (eg, I do agree with others that the WP:ATHLETE criteria are a bit too broad), and we rarely should be applying this idea to contemporary topics (where sourcing becomes less academic). But the fact remains that there is consensus that because we are an encyclopedia, some fields of topics should be covered simply due to membership in those classes, even if notability is not readily apparent or easy to show. What those classes are need to be determined by consensus before mass article creation, but there are definitely some that exist. And mind you, this is exception, not the rule; for at least 90% of the rest of WP, notability is not inherited, and individual topic notability needs to be shown or asserted through the GNG or SNGs. But to say, universally, notability is not inherited is against how WP treats certain classes of articles presently, and thus is inappropriate advice. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• I reject the notion that there is "no such thing" as inherent notability. My opinion on the GNG is that it is a reasonable indicator of notability, but it is a relatively poor definition. For example, I would argue that the reason Angela Merkel is notable is that she is the chancellor of Germany, an inherently notable position as head of government. Her notability is not because of the coverage, the coverage comes because she is notable. For an obviously notable case like Merkel, the point is more philosophical than practical. However, in many cases an inflexible adherence to WP:N as if it were the word of God will lead to unreasonable consequences, with different parts of the world receiving different and unfair treatment. For example, the towns and villages of Great Britain are accepted as notable, we have articles on pretty much every one of them, and nobody has raised serious proposals to delete any of them. Most certainly towns with a population of 10000+ (and probably a lot lower as well) are well-covered in reliable sources as well, so this state of affairs is rather uncontroversial. However, a town of 10000 people in Africa will probably not have the extensive secondary coverage we desire. That leads us to the following options:
  1. Strict adherence to WP:N. Towns in Africa need to be covered in reliable secondary sources or we won't host an article. Ensures that all our geography articles are up to par or can be easily expanded to be comprehensive.
  2. Declare that settlements like this are almost certainly notable, and accept stub articles based on census data and map information. For obscure towns this means that many geography articles will be very short, and may remain so for a long time.

If we were to measure Wikipedia's strength based on the average quality of articles, #1 would be the way to go, but it leads to very unbalanced coverage in favor of developed countries, while shortchanging coverage of developing countries. For a global encyclopedia, I think going with #2 is a far better course to take, and given that I have never seen any African town or village deleted, I believe that is the course we are currently following.

My post here may look like an inclusionist manifesto, so to balance the thing out a bit, I will mention that GNG can be way too lenient on news stories. No matter how international the coverage of 2009 Vandalism of the Gingerbread House Village in Bergen may be (it's covered by Fox for instance), I refuse to deem that incident as an encyclopedically notable one. In this case, the independent coverage comes because the item is newsworthy, not because it is encyclopedically notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that there is a minor flaw in your reasoning with regards to "inherent notability". You state that the position of Chancellor of Germany is inherently notable, but why? Because it is a head of government? And why is that notable? I reject this argument as flawed, because it has no basis in fact. There are heads of state (Filoimea Telito for example) who would have difficulty passing WP:N on their own merits and whose notability is anything but inherent or implicit. Notability is earned, not simply granted. Now, before anyone tries to string me up for arguing that we ought to delete something like Governor-General of Tuvalu for lack of notability, that's not what I am saying. I do believe that Wikipedia has a certain imperative to cover subjects like heads of state (both the offices and the officers themselves) regardless of whether or not WP:N is satisfied. I believe this imperative extends to other subjects as well - in the realm of geography, I think this easily extends to nations and states and the like. I am somewhat torn on whether or not the same can be said of every minor village throughout the world, but I am leaning toward saying that they too should be included. To me this approach solves the dilemma of the small African town. We cannot simply make broad declarations to the effect of "All settlements are notable" merely for the sake of balance; something is either notable or it is not. We cannot deem something notable as a contrivance to accomplish another goal. However if we simply state that "Wikipedia has a duty to cover settlements without regards to notability", then proper balance is achieved without fooling ourselves into believing that we Wikipedians are the grantors of notability.

I realize I have harped on about this topic previously, but a insidious problem with Wikipedia is the continual confounding of Notability (as it pertains to the GNG) and notability (as it is defined in the dictionary). I really wish that in Ye Olde Days, some name other than Notability had been chosen for this particular inclusion criterion. It creates a certain level of confusion with regards to situations like your gingerbread house vandalism - passes Notability guidelines yet is simply not notable in the proper sense of the word. Shereth 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The real reason we have a notability guideline, is because we have a verifiability policy. Since all encyclopedic content must be verifiable to independent reliable sources, subjects that lack any coverage in independent reliable sources are not notable by Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"I really wish that in Ye Olde Days, some name other than Notability had been chosen for this particular inclusion criterion." Not WikiNotable? Not Wnotable, Wotable? :-) Шизомби (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't really add anything new - our policies and guidelines are already clear - content must be verifiable to reliable sources. But perhaps it needs to be restated in this manner. Dlabtot (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose While good unambiguous language, the practical effect of this change would be to make it even easier for deleteionists to destroy other folks work at AfD. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's purpose has nothing to do with "preserving other folks' work". People who want to preserve their own work can get their own websites instead of asking Wikipedia to pretend that the time and energy they freely chose to invest in an article about a non-notable subject requires Wikipedia to host it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support the first paragraph. The second paragraph confuses coverage, which is one type of evidence for notability, with notability itself, so I have to Oppose that wording. The third paragraph would be a good aside to put in a NOTINHERITED section, but doesn't stand on its own. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support the second paragraph strongly. This is exactly what we need to establish a grounding for our articles, and it fits right in with the spirit of this guideline. The first paragraph seems overly wordy and I'm not sure what it adds that the guideline doesn't say already. I'm also not sure if the third paragraph belongs in this particular guideline; wouldn't it be better somewhere in the MOS? ThemFromSpace 18:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment You might be right. On closer examination, WP:AVOIDSPLIT actually references WP:GNG, so the third paragraph contains circular reasoning, and it might be worth dropping unless better wording can be found. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like using the word "inherited"; it makes me think that this applies only to the subset of non-notable articles that represent the offspring of notable people. If we're going to stick with this language to express both "Sub-articles don't inherit notability from the parent article" and the separate notion that "No subject is notable unless it's received some notice", then I'd give an example, e.g., "Pencils are notable, but a specific kind or brand of pencil is probably not." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose for reasons made above, that is a blatant attempt to ursurp community-wide consensus on notability and inherited notability by a few members who have radical notions of notability.陣内_Jinnai 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • How is proposing a change and asking the community for feedback an attempt to usurp consensus? It seems like a pretty good example of how WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to work. Location (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The RfC Compromise makes it clear their is a large body of support for some kind of inherited notability. This would usurp it by having a small miniority overrule the (lack of) consensus of the majority with an extreme measure that would allow no exceptions, ie no compromise and be completely against what the foundation of policy/guideline creation is about.陣内_Jinnai 04:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am OK with the change to the first paragraph, but I do not see how it is substantially different to what is currently noted. I currently oppose the addition of the second paragraph in that there is a big difference between inherited notability and inherent notability. The information at WP:INHERITED, to which this guideline proposal points, seems to equivocate between the two definitions. Location (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know why we're voting, but I think it's well said. If something is notable, that will be verifiable—it will have been noted. If sources say it's not notable (by not picking up on it), then we follow rather than second guess their assessment, as with everything. The assertion above that this would lead to some type of systemic bias is rather nonsensical—we accept non-English sources, so an African town written about by independent reliable African sources is every bit as notable as an American town written about by independent reliable American sources. But you still got to have the sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• My worry is that we open up a huge debate as to what the "parent" is. If an NFL football player is only covered with respect to his team, does that make the team the "parent"? Or maybe football is so we should only have that topic. Or just one on sports. Yes, I'm being silly, but I think the language is too broad and leaves too much open to interpretation. We know what significant coverage looks like (more-or-less) but it's really hard to figure out the line proposed. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It basically says that every article has to be backed up by independent discussion. One can't defend an article just by pointing a finger at a related article and noting the similarities. I think with the example you listed, every truly notable NFL player would get dozens if not hundreds of articles written about him specifically every year. The prohibition against inherent notability follows straight from this observation. Every single article has to be notable in its own right. If all articles in a subject are notable then for our purpose we should treat it as a coincidence and not as a dogma for future articles in a subject. For example, there's a subtle but important difference between saying that "All U.S. presidents are inherently notable" and saying that "all U.S. presidents are notable". The second is true by our standards, but the first is a logical flaw because it asserts that presidents that we don't know about are notable, no matter if they really are. Making notability claims on subjects that we know nothing about, such as the 49th president, is foolish. ThemFromSpace 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "We are an encyclopedia attempting to catalog human knowledge without being indiscriminate"—well said Masem. We shouldn't be trying to tell people what is "notable" (or how "notable" is defined). Repeated edits (over time) homing in on accuracy was the original point/purpose of WP, however we have lost that motive in an attempt to try and become as good as the Encyclopædia Britannica (et alia).  HWV258.  04:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example. I created the article Bernd Baselt, and as I write this, there are only two or three pages in article space that link to it. The article has no references, and I can confidently predict that I could ask 1,000 people on the street if they had heard of him, and I'd be lucky to find one person who had. Is Bernd Baselt notable? Hardly. Should there be an article about him on WP? Absolutely. Even without references the article should exist. This is a good example of inherited notability. With no limitations on wiki-ink, we can't be a serious publication in having a List of compositions by George Frideric Handel, each of which is designated a HWV (opus) number, and each documented by a man named Bernd Baselt—and not have an article on the man. Sure the stub is annoyingly brief, and I would dearly like to expand it, but information on the guy is rare (and most likely in German). Bernd existed, and did significant work, but just try to find "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources". Unlikely. The stub is a starting point and also acts as an encouragement for others to take the lead. There is no deadline at WP.  HWV258.  05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there is no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. What about the Grove Dictionary of Music, have you checked that? Dlabtot (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please stop creating articles without sources, particularly biographies! I can't believe you're actually proud of doing that. Read WP:V to see why this is the completely wrong approach. How do we know in the absence of a source that you're correct in what you entered? What you mean when you say we should have an article on him is that you're a fan of Handel and have read some of Baselt's books, so of course you're entitled to write an unsourced entry about him off the top of your head. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure authors. Stop being pessimistic about finding sources and just look for some. In fact, here's some: [3][4][5][6]. Fences&Windows 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I do hope that you one day come to appreciate the building aspect of WP, and that you stop treating WP as a finished product. I'm proud that I started the process of one day having a fine article about Baselt, and I'm more than happy for anyone to come along and correct what I've started.

You have damaged your argument when you use "obscure authors", and thankfully you have now demonstrated to everyone exactly what is wrong with the arguments proffered by many on this page. In terms of the wider community, Baselt is obscure, however in the academic area of Handel research, Baselt is immensely important. Who here is now going to attempt to apply the word "notable" to Baselt (in either the is, or is not context)? That's a minefield. One man's trash is another man's treasure, etc. Are you starting to see the problem? So, slap your {{notable}} tag on articles, and leave the rest of us to build an "encyclopedia attempting to catalog human knowledge" (thanks again Masem).

Have you really examined the "references" you provided? Reference [1] contains an essay called Handel and his Central German Background by Bernd Baselt (so that wouldn't give any further details about Baselt's life). Reference [2] mentions that Baselt has undertaken further research on Almira, and that Baselt is just one of many who advised the author regarding Essays on Handel & Italian Opera (so that wouldn't be much help either in terms of Baselt's life). Reference [3] refers to Baselt's work Thematisch-systematisches Verzeichnis, oratorische Werke, vokale Kammermusik, Kirchenmusik as a source, and actually disputes some of Baselt's conclusions (so we're not doing too well determining much about Baselt the man or his life with this one either). However with Reference [4] you've finally hit pay-dirt as it is this very page that I used to determine that Baselt died in 1993. I stopped short of using it as a reference since HighBeam Research is commercial site and therefore I'm not sure how anyone is going to get hold of the Notes booklet it sells (there is no ISBN or Dewey Decimal classification mentioned on the page).

 HWV258.  19:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read them, don't be so patronising. You're the one who couldn't be bothered to add sources to back up the article you wrote. I did look them up as I appreciate the value of our core policies. I realise that the sources are weak, but they're the best available and better than the zero sources you provided. The problem I'm seeing is your belief that you're entitled to write about anything you like without proving reliable sources - this kind of editing is lazy, and leaves it to others to do the work in making this a reliable encyclopedia instead of an information dump. Fences&Windows 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

All a pejorative way of looking at my actions (and I didn't ask if you had "read" them; I asked if you had "really examined" them). "You're the one who couldn't be bothered to add sources.."—no, I'm the one that couldn't find non-"weak" sources, and therefore decided not to make the stub look like a psuedo-authoritative work. I'm still not convinced about linking to information in web sites (as you have now done) as they can change at a moment's notice. Please remember: I'm trying. If you wish to continue this, please use the relevant talk place as I think this is now too off-topic for this page.  HWV258.  00:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as having an inclusion criteria based on the elitist and subjective concept of "notability" is absurd in its own right and strengthening an absurd concept is unhelpful on a catalog of human knowledge that does not have the limitations faced by paper encyclopedias. Spinoff articles of topics worthy of inclusion are generally good tools for those who want a little more detail, much in the way that Britannica has the micro- and macropedias, i.e. someone who wants a summary of say a film or video game can just read the main article (the micro), but someone who wants to read a bit more on say the characters and click the link to the spinoff article (the macro). Coverage in reliable sources, whether primary or secondary, is good enough for a spinoff article. We do not need to be needlessly bogged down by subjective things like "significant" or unreasonable adherence to concepts like "independent." When a published print strategy guide for example that includes out of universe chapters or features with say interviews on design is dismissed as not sufficiently independent, we have lost sight of any reasonable inclusion criteria for our project. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" is simply inaccurate as the community stands. Trivia are verifiable, so is a large amount of indiscriminate data. The proposed wording just doesn't describe anything even close to the community's stance on describing notability, and also don't work well in avoiding being indiscriminate, another main aim in deciding upon inclusion. I think this was also explained by others in that archive. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, on philosophical and practical grounds. "Verifiability" and "notability" are two distinct and independent concepts. "Verifiability" is about article contents. "Notability" is about an article's topic. There are notable topics for which there is no verifiable information (such as "Labor relations in Santa Claus's workshop" or "Neanderthal mythology") as well as verifiable information that is unlikely to be relevant to any notable topic (such as the shipping weight for the Makita RBC201 Grass Trimmer's cylinder gasket). Verifiability is sufficiently objective, logical and consensual that no detailed definition or guidelines are neeeded: its implementation can be left to editors to decide, on an article-by-article and sentence-by-sentence basis, through normal editing procedures. Notability's definition is inherently subjective, arbitrary, and disputed; as proven by the length of this page and its 30+ archives, it is very far from consensual; and its implementation depends on a flawed, stressful, and inefficient mechanism (the AfD process). Indeed, acording to a previous post, there is a whole "horde" (which I dare read as "majority") of editors who disagree with the very notion that "notability" should be a requirement at all, or that enforcing it is worth the cost. The closest concept for article contents is "relevance", which, like verifiability, is best left for individual editors to implement, case-by-case. Therefore, the proposal errs not only in asserting that one implies the other, but also in assuming that the "notability requirement" is consensual. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Jorge, in your opinion, is every single verifiable subject notable? Does the particular size, shape and brand of the very boring paper clip on the floor next to me deserve an article? I'm pretty sure I can find a website that proves this kind of paperclip exists. Shall I start an article called Office Depot brand silver jumbo paper clip? If not, why do you mind us saying that the mere fact that something can be verified to exist is not actually sufficient to justify an entire, separate, stand-alone article about it? Because that's how I'd summarize these paragraphs, and you seem to oppose it.
    Also, I thought it was established a long time ago that nothing that us unverifiable (as information, not Truth™) gets an article. Or are we supposed to just make up stories about labor relations in Santa's workshop, and list "Jorge says I can write whatever I want" in the reference section, in violation of WP:MADEUP? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this section be titled "Inherited notability"? "Inherent notability" appears to be a separate concept, one that is being discussed elsewhere on this page, though I see how there could be some overlap. Шизомби (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it is all the same. Whether notability is said to be inherited or presumed to be inherent, it is based on the assumption that there is no need to provide evidence that a topic has been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG. It is basically way of claiming that a topic is exempt from the requirement for reliable, third party sources in WP:BURDEN; or put another way, the statement that notability is inherent/inherited is another way of saying the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is the Truth™, not verifiability. Jorge Stolfi is basically arguing that since individual editors know what the the Truth™ is, they don't need to provide any evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. "Inherent" and "inherit"/"inherited" do not mean the same thing. If we come to the conclusion that 1) "notability is not inherited" and 2) "notability is not inherent", then we may deal with topics in the same manner; however, that doesn't give us "poetic license" to equivocate on the meanings of the two words. Passing a guideline that states "inherited" but also means "inherent" could open up a can of worms. Location (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• In the English language they are different words; the issue here is that as per notability, they are treated as the same thing: that is, what we do able articles where the topic is presumed to have some inherent property that makes it notable, or a topic that is related to another notable topic in a manner that makes that first topic notable as well - and how willing we are to let articles ride on those claims. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We could address both sides, by adding a sentence like this:

Notability is also not inherent. No subject is so intrinsically important that Wikipedia needs to have an unverifiable article about it at this time. What makes a subject notable is the independent, third-party notice it has received from reliable sources in the real world, not the subjective and personal values of individual editors.

(Or perhaps just sticking the first sentence into the first existing paragraph, which says the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What I like about WhatamIdoing's proposal is that it both refutes the argument that a topic is inherently notable at this time if there is no evidence, but does not close down the possibility that an article topic may be notable if evidence can be found in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The notability of unverifiable subjects

No. That's trying to slide through something that most people here already agree on - WP:V by saying the GNG is the only source for showing verifiability of importance, which it's not.陣内_Jinnai 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai, forgive me for being blunt, but how the heck do you write an article when you are certain that no sources exist about the subject?

As far as I can tell, the answer is "you don't, and if you try, we'll delete it."

Verifiability is not Notability, but Verifiability is a necessary wikt:precondition for Notability. That is, a thing can be verifiable and non-notable (see Office Depot brand silver jumbo paper clip above), but a thing cannot be both notable and non-verifiable. Wikipedia does not permit articles about things that cannot be verified to exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure we can accept this statement at face value, for if Wikipedia does not permit articles about things that cannot be verified to exist, then there would be no articles about fictional characters. Notability defines what a verifiable topic is for the purposes of writing an encyclopedic article. If there is no commentary, criticism or analysis about a topic (real or imagined), then it is not been verified in the sense that it has not been the subject of a reliable, third party source. For all intents and purposes, the inclusion criteria of WP:V and WP:GNG are the same. Some editors forget that verifiablity and notability are about sources, rather than the opinions of editors. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not about writing an encyclopedic article, it is about making sure that included topics are not indiscriminate. The GNG, by happenstance, also makes sure we do have sources and can write a good encyclopedia article about the topic, satisfying V and other policies at the same time, but it is a happenstance.--MASEM (t) 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Our verifiability policy is perfectly clear. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Therefore if the content of an article about a fictional character cannot be verified to reliable sources, the article should be deleted. The statement that then there would be no articles about fictional characters is pure hyperbole and has absolutely no basis in fact. Dlabtot (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree wth Dlabtot that Gavin's statement is wrong. Wikipedia clearly accepts that Harry Potter can be verified to exist (as a literary character, not as a human). We can refuse to include articles about things that, for all we can tell by any objective evidence, were simply WP:MADEUP one day, without refusing to include articles about abstract ideas, literary creations, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter, like the theory of relativity does not exist, as they only exist as a fiction or an abstraction within a primary work. However, they can be made to exist for the purposes of Wikipedia through real world commentary about the topic. Secondary sources that include commentary are the basis of inclusion criteria in Wikipedia, rather than the primary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters exist as long as there's verifiable evidence they exist, which can include pointing to the primary work; someone thought of that idea and "published" it, therefore that idea exists. It is not the presence of secondary sources that cement that fact any further (their lack doesn't change the fact that the idea of that character exists), but instead identify the element as beyond above the "indiscriminate" pool of every fictional character ever created by any person ever, and thus making it "notable" to be appropriately covered in an article on WP. And again, as above, the presence of secondary sources aids in strengthening the verification of the element, but it is not the case in absence of those sources that the element lacks verification. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Independent sources are required to establish notability; otherwise we would end up with an article for every fictional character that ever appeared in any published work, however minor. Dlabtot (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, even basic dictionary definitions allow for non-physical things to exist. This is a standard use of the English word, and it's kind of silly to keep arguing the opposite -- especially as you contradict yourself in the same sentence ("Harry Potter...does not exist, as [he] only exist[s]...").

Dlabtot, Masem doesn't say that every verifiable character is notable: non-notable things also exist. (See Office Depot brand silver jumbo paper clip above.) The point I'm trying to establish is that non-verifiable subjects are always non-notable. The converse is not also true and has never been claimed by me.

Of possible interest, a fictional work is, itself, accepted as a reliable source for claims about what its own content is. Thus Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone proves the existence of the character Harry Potter -- but not his notability, since the novel is a primary source, and WP:N requires the existence of a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot, Masem doesn't say that every verifiable character is notable. I never made any claim that he did say that, so I'm not sure what your point is. Dlabtot (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) Perhaps it will make more sense if I paraphrase these comments into bullet points:

Masem says:

• "You can verify the existence of a fictional character with a primary source."
• "notability wants secondary sources so that Wikipedia doesn't end up with millions of articles about minor characters."

You said:

• "I don't agree."
• "Notability wants secondary sources so that Wikipedia doesn't end up with millions of articles about minor characters."

Do you understand why I'm confused that you supposedly "don't agree" with Masem? Your views on notability seem to be identical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The two things you wrote are identical, but neither of us used the words you ascribed to us. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is the nature of a paraphrase to be different from a direct quotation. I also notice that neither of you have asserted that my paraphrase of your previous comments is inaccurate. Perhaps you would like to reconsider, then, your earlier assertion that you disagreed with Masem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I guess I misunderstood him at first. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Inherited notability: Discussion

• Should we close this thread? Gavin's original proposal is being opposed for various reasons and he never really explained what this wording was meant to achieve (as is common with his proposals). If inclusionists want to formally propose getting rid of notability guidelines, open an RfC instead of simply complaining about it. Then you can find out whether notability has consensus or not. Fences&Windows 20:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Compalining helps us guage the level of support for a downgrade, there seems slighly more than Id have exspected but not enough for it to be tactically sound to raise a RFC at this point. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear what it seeks to achieve. We have a body of guidance, such as WP:NOTINHERITED, that is widely accepted, yets sits outside this guideline. I can see that there is opposition to this proposal based on broader opposition to notability in general, but I have not seen any arguments that refute the basic principles of WP:NOTINHERITED, which is basically a way of saying that notability can only be supported by verifiable evidence in accordance with WP:GNG.
My overall concern is that the notability guideline are being the subject for various proposals that verifiable evidence of notability is not required in some instances (athletes, roads, schools, military awards, etc) that basically suggest that notability can be inherited/acknowledged/presumed based on the opinions of one or more editors (often refered to as the "consensus"). Instead of submitting to subjective arguments for article inclusion, I think it better to define what the limits of notability in the absense of signficiant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The absence of such sources good quality prevents decent articles from being written. Those articles which have been created without good quality sources on the presumption that notability is inherited tend to be pretty crappy, which is why I am trying to get solicit support for this proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that WP:NOTINHERITED is contained within an essay that covers a large amount of ground, it's not clear to me that it reflects consensus on every point that it touches upon. (I imagine that there are quite a few of us who don't spend a lot of time challenging things in essays since they don't carry too much weight.) BTW, another relevant essay to this discussion is WP:Inherent notability. I tend to agree with those who would assert that "notability is not inherent" or "notability is not inherited"; however, I think a decent argument could be made that certain things may be inherently encyclopedic. Location (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the arguement that a topic is inherently notable is just another version of WP:IKNOWIT. Whether a topic is "encyclopedic", "highly significant" or "inherently notable" is the same as subjective importance. Whether or not an article topic is notable is also a matter of opinion, but if a topic is notable, then at least there should be some verifiable evidence to support or disprove this opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Given how much information those things cover, it is just as subjective to narrowly define "notable" then state that only notable topics are encyclopedic. Location (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, while I agree we need some criteria for determining what to include so we don't have people including info on their pet dog or imaginary friend, consensus is against requiring everything to pass through the jaws of the GNG. While its true there is no consensus that inherited notability should be used, its clear their is massive support for it to the tune of roughly 50%. What that entails to each person varies, but as this guideline, like every other guideline/policy is determined from the bottom up (save BLP & Fair use for legal reasons), not top-down, the lack of any willingness to find a way to compromise with the large body with something that doesn't just regurgitate the GNG is not going to fly. This is part of the reason the GNG is only a guideline, and not policy (among others). Too many specialized topics cannot be readily supported by the GNG yet would probably be important enough to put in an encyclopedia that doesn't have to worry about space issues.陣内_Jinnai 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree we need some criteria for determining what to include, it seems to me that the only two alternatives are notability or subjective importance. Notability is supported by the rest of Wikipedia's content policies, so in a way it is a top down approach, if you ant to look at this way. If you want a set of inclusion criteria that are based on bottom up approach which depends on what individual editors support, then subjective importance is the way forward.
Personally, I prefer notability based on evidence. Just because one or more editors think an article topic does or does not inherit notability seems to me to be a formula for endless disputes. It seems to me that article inclusion criteria based a requirement for verfiable evidence is a much democatic and bottom approach than relying on the opinions of one or two so called "expert" editors. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As i've said before and will continue to say, notability is subjective because its foundation is subjective. You cannot build something objective when the foundation isn't.陣内_Jinnai 02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if you think that objective evidence of media notice being taken is "subjective", the alternative, which is "I personally think this is an important subject because WP:ILIKEIT," is at the very minimum dramatically more subjective than "Four newspapers and sixteen national magazines have published articles about this subject, so I think other people have taken notice of this subject." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is not necessarily WP:ILIKEIT vs. "Four newspapers and sixteen national magazines have published articles about this subject, so I think other people have taken notice of this subject." It is possible to have a topic that meets WP:V (i.e. objective evidence of notice by others) but is in between those two choices. In the absence of some objective standard of what is encyclopedic, where the line is drawn for inclusion/exclusion is, dare I say it, inherently subjective. Location (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that it's a false alternative, and I also don't think that you are addressing Jinnai's statement. Jinnai argues on this page that a subject that we already know is not capable of complying with WP:V (at this time) should still be permitted to have an article (sometimes, for unspecified and unspecifiable topics), and that "Do any sources exist about this subject?" is inherently a subjective question instead of an objective one. I (and more or less every other editor for the last five years) say that if you absolutely can't demonstrate — with third-party sources, not merely personal information — that the thing exists, then Wikipedia should not have an article about it at this time.

Your issue seem to be your belief that "'WP:Notable' equals 'encyclopedic'" (a claim Wikipedia does not make), which is unrelated to whether the existence of sources about the subject is (1) a necessary part of determining whether Wikipedia will agree to have a separate article on the subject, or (2) a thing that is "subjective" or "objective". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If Jinnai has argued that unverifiable content is allowed in Wikipedia, I have not seen that statement. Correcting what you have asserted about me, I do believe that encyclopedic content must always be verifiable and usually (but not always) notable; however, I certainly do not believe that notable content is always encyclopedic. Location (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai says that requiring reliable sources would result in "too many specialized topics" be excluded from the encyclopedia; Jinnai opposes efforts to declare that all notable subjects are also verifiable; Jinnai asserts that notability is not required for Wikipedia articles; Jinnai asserts classes of articles and a specific example of subjects that are supposedly exempt from deletion ("notable") even when no sources exist (not merely "no sources are already named on the page", but "no sources exist").

These are, I suspect you will agree, radical positions that do not reflect the general community consensus, which I think would be fairly summarized as "Notability is proven by showing reliable sources, not by saying "But it's a ____, and ____s are obviously important!" or "Personally, I think we should have an unverifiable article about this." No topic is so incredibly important that Wikipedia needs to have a completely unverifiable article about it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read all of those comments (again) and, suffice it to say, it does not appear to me that Jinnai "says", "opposes", or "asserts" the things you say he/she does.

I would agree that the general community consensus is that all content must be verifiable. The general community consensus is not that all content must be verified as notable. The trouble with using "notable" as a necessary prerequisite for inclusion is that what constitutes notability is inherently subjective. The fact that a bit of information appears on-line or in a book or on television means that someone has taken notice of it; most of us just want a higher degree of notice taken for it to be on Wikipedia. With that in mind, if someone argues for lower standards on athletes, books, streets, etc., then they are not necessarily stating that they want unverifiable information included. Location (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you are trying to put the horse before the cart. Would you say that since splashing water makes things wet then anything that is wet must have been splashed by water? If not, then stop trying to say that when i say that everything that doesn't pass the GNG automatically fails verifiability because that's the kind of argument your making.

As for my examples, I base my evidence on what the community consensus holds; there are articles that can fail the GNG and still be kept. Lists of television episodes are one such example. There was also clear consensus that SNGs could help define sources that could help show notability.

Finally, my example of the use of dungeon is one that would probably pass without needing to specifically pass the GNG (though it would still require meeting WP:V because it has become a term used to describe a core subject of gaming. Whether or not it has signfigiant independent coverage wouldn't matter; by its very definition it could pass on the basis it was encyclopedic. That said, you notice I haven't created that topic. Why? because i think it could probably be better suited within a list of terms unless I find some more research material. However, in this case, even if the research material was all from people not wholly independent of the subject, ie they helped create and influence its development, it would still be enough to pass because it would be considered encyclopedic as it has had a major influence on society at large.

Just because the community at large or some academic scholar hasn't taken notice does not mean a subject is not worthy of inclusion; this is an encyclopedia first and foremost and encyclopedias often deal with obscure knowledge that the wider world and the academic world may not know about, yet it is still important to have it.陣内_Jinnai 05:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Jinnai's interpretation of what is the consensus, is, in reality, just his point of view. I don't think the WP:AFD is the venue where consensus is forged anymore than pistol duel is the venue for setting legal precedent. Just because an article escapes deletion, it does not mean it is suitable for a standalone article, and is often the case, this is far from it. Within the context of our discussion, this means that notability can't be inhereited even though related articles escape deletion at WP:AFD. If we were to base our inclusion criteria on the type of low quality articles that get nominated for deletion, that would truely be an example of putting the cart before the horse.
The criteria for deletions and inclusion are very different, and are different process which should be viewed as being seperate and distinct. The reasons for deleting an article (or not) boil down to subjective judgement, because participants in deletion debates have to make a decision on whether an article should be deleted in the absence of evidence. For this reason, the only defense against deletion is for an article to provide verifiable evidence of notability, which provides assurance that an article is compliant with Wikipedia's content policies. This is key to understanding why notability can't be inherited: it is just not possible to sustain this argument at WP:AFD, hence the advice provided by WP:NOTINHERITED is generally accepted, and that is why we should include it in this guideline.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD is the perfect place to understand where consensus sits, though one had to understand it is also not always consistent since it is not the same people always discussing the topic. But it has been used time and time again to develop policy and guideline since it is an example of consensus in practical application:

• Observe patterns at recent AFDs
• Propose policy/guideline/modification to such that follows pattern
• Present above to appropriate pages, seek larger consensus
• If agreed, enact.

And to that end, there have been plenty of AFD and related discussions on articles with claim to inherent/inherited notability that imply for certain fields that such exists. NOTINHERITED is still true for nearly all of the topics out there, but the community has identified, from AFD and other discussions, there are limited applications of inherited notability. Thus, we cannot state that "Notability is not inherited", only that "Notability is rarely inherited" and explain that consensus is needed to assume when it is for limited topics. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems to me a really weird conclusion to draw, for if WP:NOTINHERITED forms part of consensus that has emerged from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, then I would have thought it pretty safe to to say that "Notability is not inherited" at WP:AFD as well. I think Masem will find that the statement "Notability is rarely inherited" is not supported by any guideline or policy, nor is it supported at WP:AFD either. It seems to me that Masem will always believe what he wants to believe, regardless of the evidence against his views. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

First, consensus drives policy, not the other way around. We set, and change, the rules as the community reacts and changes. Which is why objective measures, while great to reduce the number of xFDs, are against the ideals of WP. But secondly, have you actually read the section of WP:NOTINHERITED at WP:ATA? (which, btw, is an essay).

• "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."
• "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities"
• "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently;"
• "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady."

(emphasis mine). It is clear from that that the language that is sought to be added here, that "notability is universally not inherited" is wrong. There are cases and allowances, as outlined by the ATA essay, where there are such cases, most often decided by consensus. I stress I'm not dismissing any advice against presuming inherited notability, because for the shear majority of topics, I readily accept there is no such thing as "inherited notability". But I cannot support a statement that attempts to make it clear across the board when our existing advice (only at ATA as best as I can tell) clearly shows we do allow for a small number topics to stand on inherited notability. Note, however, this is still based on the same logic as the SNGs: the call of inherited notability, where consensus allows for it, is not a substitute for getting more sources and expanding the article once sources appear, but it is a means to allow for creations of stub articles that are of topics we want to cover (due to their inherited nature) and are useful for encouraging editors to expand. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is too permissive; the basic principle that "Notability is not inherited" is not the same as "Notability is sometimes inherited", no matter how you twist around the words. All of the SNGs without exception require verifiable evidence of notability, and although there is some special treatment suggested for certain classes of individuals such as professional athletes, none of the SNG's explicitly say that notability is inherited explicitly, for if they did, it would not be widely accepted.
My primary objection to the idea that notability can be inhererited is that it is in direct conflict with the generally accepted view that notability requires verifiable evidence. My second objection is that arguments in favour of inherited notabality depend on arbitary arguments such as "being a member of a group", "being in a parent-child tree" or "being in a public position". Even we were to allow ourselves to believe that Masem is right, it seems to me that these two problems are intellectually insoluble. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We require verifiable evidence that the relationship or connection that is implied by the inherited notability exists, not of the GNG-type of notability. Some are very easy: the example of the First Lady is going to be easy to find references to confirm that she, in fact, is the wife of the President (though the same logic will imply there will likely be plenty of sources for GNG-type notability to be met). But take the case of towns or villages in third-world countries, where presently there is the presumption of inherent notability due to being recognized by that country's local government. There is likely to be no GNG-type notability, but there is verifiable evidence from government records that that town or village exists - that is, the people that created the bots made sure that the sources were linked to the articles to affirm their existence. I could make an article that claims that "Makebelievia, Switzerland" is a town and write it just like those other stubs, but I would like any source to assert it exists, and thus that fails. That is the verifiable evidence that we want when a topic is presumed to have inherent/inherited notability. Now, yes, a better article is gotten with the addition of secondary sources, but if consensus has decided that certain classes of articles can get by without them for some period of time due to inherent/inherited notability, then it's not going to be deleted easily.

As to the second argument: yes, I agree that the wording is vague that it can be argued all sorts of ways at AFD. Which is why I'm in favor of only allowing inherent/inherited notability to apply to a short list of explicit conditions which has been vetted at the community level, adding and removing those as consensus changes, thus making the statement "Notability, unless outlined in (list of exempted cases), is not inherited" correct and thus weakening such claims of inherited notability when the topic falls outside the exempted case list. We already have some, that being our list of SNGs, but there are other ones, again like towns and villages or specific plant and animal species, where we've come to accept that we'll have an article on every on of those even if they cannot be improved in the immediate future. I would have no problem with getting a consensus based lists of the limited cases when notability is inherited as a point to work forwards from with the understanding that claiming inherited notability on cases that fall outside that list are likely going to be futile arguments. That said, creating such a list is going to be difficult beyond what is already in the SNGs, as there are probably lots of topics where every current member is already notable per GNG (such as US Presidents) and we would never think it necessary to worry about asserting notability of a new member on that list, until the situation actually arises. But the fundamental point here is that we have clear cases where notability can be inherent or inherited, but that is a short list, and the concept does not apply to the bulk of other topics at WP. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you passionately believe that certain topics can inherit notability, or are inherently notable start with, but it is just your personal belief. Its a reasonable viewpoint, but Wikipedia's content polices are not based on belief in the truth; they require verifiable evidence: evidence of existence as a distinct and seperate topic, evidence that an article's content is not original research, evidence that an article's coverage is not biased in favour of one viewpoint or another. The existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is evidence based, and belief in inherited/inherent notability fall outside its scope. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, summarizing human knowledge in a discriminate fashion. To that end, topics in certain select fields should be immediately included though inherent or inherited notability, because they are fundamental to human knowledge (things like the planets, types of rock, countries of the world, etc.) Of course, at the same time, nearly all of these topics are likely to be well-sourced, so there's no question of their inclusion from the GNG POV. But we are different from Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is limited by space. We have the option (and there is consensus to do so) to assert that slightly-less-academic topics merit inclusion automatically (though inherent or inherited notability) as long all these topics satisfy the content guidelines, including being not indiscriminate, verification, etc. So things like towns and villages, or every fauna/flora species are certainly possibilities for automatic inclusion should consensus want it (and given how these are treated, that is the case). I don't think we'll ever have the case where non-academic, contemporary topics, like fictional characters or web memes, are given inherent/inherited notability in the same manner as countries of the world or U.S. Presidents, and for these, the GNG is still likely the best measure to establish that these topics are different than the usual members of their class and thus deserving of an article due to that notability. But when strict reading of notability, including inherent/inherited notability, gets in the way of covering topics that the consensus has determined should be covered and can be covered without violating V, NOR, and other core policies (as the case for towns/villages, and species), then we must realize inherent/inherited notability does exist. And yes, this is still based on evidence: the creation of the towns/villages stubs could not happen until there was a reliable source (in some cases, the country's government census data) to establish they all existed. That was determined by consensus and with a smattering of good faith assumptions. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that "select fields should be immediately included though inherent or inherited notability" goes against WP:BURDEN, which says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". There is not free pass or exemption from this requirement from any subject matter, whether it is roads, villages or species of flowers or any other "select" subject. And why should there be? For if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, then it is just not possible to write an article that meets Wikipedia's content policies. There is no evidence to suggest the inclusion of topics using tertiary sources such datebases and Google map coordinates gives rise to anything more than barebone stubes taht fail WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and will one day be merged or deleted.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the extreme. However, if there is 1 independent reliable source then it passes WP:BURDEN for most non-controversial subjects.陣内_Jinnai 16:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For the select few fields that we treat as automatically included by inherent/inherited, there at least needs to be a source to validate that topic as part of that field; eg, the fact a person is a US president, the fact a town is listed in a government database, etc. That's sufficient to pass V, NOR, NPOV and all other content policies. Yes, we'd like more an encyclopedia, but we are more than just an encyclopedia and even if they remain stubby forever, there is less harm in including the stub than there is in completely omitting it. It is called common sense, and why consensus drives the work, not rules. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that supports the idea that there is any field or "fields that we treat as automatically included", but by contrast, WP:NOTINHERITED is generally accepted. Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia; it is an encyclopedia that anyone can add a new article to, provided there is evidence that the topic is notable. The reason why notability is evidence based is that it would be possible to spawn a thousand content forks about one topic (e.g. Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (character)) using inclusion criteria that are based on opinion and don't require evidence. The arguments that you are using to support your viewpoint are just a restatement of inclusion based on subjective importance such "it is common sense", "it is the consensus" or "the rules don't prohibit it". The idea that some topics are inherently notable or inherit notability is just another way of saying that a topic is exempt from WP:BURDEN, which is why we should bring WP:NOTINHERITED into this guideline, and close down this line of arbitary thinking. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously reading that wrong Gavin. WP:BURDEN is not a part of WP:N, but WP:V. And WP:V does provide that a topic can exist as long as it doesn't violate WP:NOT. Only this guideline tries to claim everything needs more, which in many cases it does. Many =/= every though otherwise we'd just scrap WP:V and paste WP:N as the policy because the former would become useless piece of trash. There are some things out there that are just notable by there very nature.陣内_Jinnai 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as poorly worded: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; ..." In the context of this guideline it's more than that because the guideline is about separate articles. Pcap ping 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Specific Dogs

Hey all, Following a couple of recent AFD discussions about specific dogs, the query was raised that there isn't a current specific notability guideline for dog show champions. Obviously the standard rules apply such as third party references etc, but in the case of Tiger Woods (AFD discussion) he is mentioned in third party refs, but not because he's won several smaller (I consider Westminster and the UK Crufts to be the two big ones) dog shows.

Anyway, the bar I'd be looking to set would be to require dog show champions to have one either the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show (USA) or Crufts (UK), this would save such referenced articles as Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee without hopefully causing an influx of such article because of the need for third party references (the earlier winners will have a harder time getting references I'm sure).

Anyway, let me know what your opinions are. (Obviously such documentation would be held at WikiProject Dogs). Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue initially no, winning a dog show award (and by application, this would be the case of any animal winning a prestigious animal award, like a horse winning the Triple Crown) is not sufficient. We do have guidelines that say if a human wins an award, we presume them to be notable (per WP:BIO), but that is based on the understanding that with the achievement of that award will come follow-up biographies, interviews, and other secondary coverage to be beyond just the mention of the award. For dogs, and this is where I may be wrong, it seems that winning the award does not lead to this additional coverage, in part that we obviously can't interview the dog. Now, if it can be shown that winning these awards usually leads to more detailed coverage, then I can accept that, but otherwise, the worst we can have a list of (name of dog show) winners, with whatever brief information there is about then spelled out in a combination article. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Masem. If a human wins, for example, the Nobel Peace Prize, chances are good that multiple reliable sources will do a good deal of followup on that person. Note that still must actually happen—if for some reason it didn't in a particular case, we can't support a full article on thin sourcing, but it's a good place to give guidance that the appropriate amount and type of sourcing is more likely to exist in such a case. That guidance wouldn't seem to be correct in the case of dog show winners, as most of the time little followup is done. As always, though, if the sourcing is there in any individual case to justify an article, by all means write it and cite them! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If WikiProject Dogs wants to issue a bit of 'non-binding advice' on this subject to help non-specialist editors, then they're welcome to add an essay to their project page. They don't need any sort of permission to do this.

The "real" rule is that everything depends on the sources. If you've got a show dog that wins nothing but gets written up a lot anyway -- say, for causing chaos at every show it attends -- then it's probably still notable. If you've got a show dog that wins everything, but nobody 'notices' it (=no or very few good sources), then it's not notable.

As a general reminder, even non-notable dogs could be named in a [[List of Westminster dog show winners]]. Notable means "gets a separate Wikipedia article all to itself". Nearly every Wikipedia article contains (and should contain) information about non-notable people, places, things, and ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I was hoping to put out some sort of "advice" to prevent issues like this from occurring further don the line. Looking at the general notability guidelines now, and everything does depend on the sources, and that stays true in this case.Miyagawa (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

intitle:dog prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion will find you some of the other AfDs on dogs. Dogs of United States Presidents get submitted sometimes, but appear to have always been kept, even when there's little to be said about them beyond reporting on the enthusiastic reporting of the media reporting on the dogs. Шизомби (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RELEVANT

This link redirects here; to my mind, notability is directed to articles, where relevance is broader, and refers to content inclusion for topics already notable, and this post is directed to trivia more than anything else; one solution is to redirect WP:RELEVANT to WP:TRIVIA, but that does not necessarily give us some consensus-based guidance as to inclusion of article content. Comments welcome. Rodhullandemu 00:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold here and just redirect it to Wikipedia:Relevance. Wikipedia has no consensus-based guidance as to the general inclusion of article content. What is "relevant" to any article on Wikipedia has to be uniquely determined. Better to have the link point to a page that shows that there is no guidance on the subject, than to misleadingly point it to any guideline that isn't about content inclusion.--Father Goose (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant arguably relates to "significant coverage" or could go to RS. Шизомби (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New notability guideline proposed for software

See: Wikipedia talk:Essay on the notability of software#RfC: Should this notability essay be promoted to the status of a guideline. Pcap ping 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as software is just like any other product or service and therefore is covered in depth and in detail by WP:CORP. So what is the purpose of this guideline? Looking at the inclusion criteria, it is clear to me that its sole purpose is to exempt software from WP:SPAM by allowing "significant product reviews" to be the basis of inclusion. This is a bad idea for two reasons:

1. Notability is not temporary; routine news reports about products do not constitute evidence of notability;
2. In accordance with WP:CORP, a company or product must be the subject of significant coverage, which shows that a product has had some "demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education".

Other reasons for disallowing product reviews is that they are seldom critical, nor do they evaluate alternative or substitue products. Simply put, product reviews don't provide significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet memes

The decision on which internet memes are given their own pages and which are not seems to be totally arbitrary. Why does the Star Wars kid's meme get a page while Afro Ninja and Elizabeth Lambert do not? The answer to that question prompts another: Why are any of these memes worthy of their own pages? It seems to me that the people who care enough to fight articles deletion processes tend to be relatively likeminded people who make decisions on what they believe is cool/funny/notable rather than what is objectively notable, and they are unable to take off their lens and objectively examine whether these pages meet the notability guidelines. Virtually all memes are NOT notable to people outside the socioeconomic/cultural sphere that Wikipedia's user-administrators are part of (a sphere that represents only a fraction of the English-speaking population of the world). They do not receive significant coverage (which is the hallmark of WP:NOTABILITY) outside of the self-driven blogs and websites that serve the relatively small internet-obsessed population from which most Wikipedia user-administrators are drawn.

A smell-test for me is this: If Person X died tomorrow, would it receive significant coverage? I can't think of a single subject of an internet meme for which the answer would be "yes." So the BLPs of people who are really just known for internet memes likely never meet the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. They should be compiled on pages like List of Internet phenomena and viral videos, but that should be it. If these were considered biographies of living persons, they would almost certainly violate WP:BLP1E - pages are posted of people notable only for a single internet meme surrounding them, but the rules relating to BLPs are circumvented because the page is ostensibly of "the phenomenon" rather than "the person."

If Wikipedia has aspirations to be taken seriously as a source of information in the future, it cannot continue to allow itself to fall into the trap of allowing the cultural biases of a majority of its administrators to allow pages to be created for memes that receive lots of attention among the administrators and their friends, but are little noted by the rest of the universe.

Apologies if I rambled a bit, but you get the idea. Niremetal (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sofixit. If they fail the WP:GNG, and you've made a good effort at sourcing the article, nominate them for deletion. These articles don't get a free pass. Fences&Windows 03:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it is generally difficult to get most to pass the GNG to begin with.陣内_Jinnai 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Internet pheneomena have great notability because they get lots of coverage in mainstream media. There are columns and programs entirely devoted to them such as Rude Tube and The Ridiculant. BLP1E doesn't mean that we don't cover something - it means that we cover the event, not the participants. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • But they nearly always receive only transient coverage, no? What's the point of distinguishing between Wikinews and Wikipedia if stories covered by a couple mainstream media sources for a day or two (or by a couple niche outlets for a week), never to be seen again in the mainstream media, qualify for their own Wikipedia page? And no, they do not have "great notability" outside of the fraction of the population that are internet junkies (of which Wikipedia editors are generally a part). To everyone else, it's at most one-day news story and that's it. Niremetal (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about "temporary" notability recently. So normally, if you've got two good secondary sources, the article is entirely safe against any AfD. So the biggest newspaper in the country writes about the politician (twice -- say, upon election or appointment, and one story upon death), and we're set, right? Well, what if those newspaper articles are from 400 years ago, and the person has been utterly ignored since then? Is this person still notable? On a recent source, we can't make crystal-ball predictions that a currently notable person will cease being notable, but perhaps if no sources have mentioned the person in the last 50 years, then they have lost notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, this is another good example illustrating the problems with the GNG. As has been stated above, find 2 independent news stories about a subject and bam, it goes down in the annals of history thanks to, among others, Wikipedia. Thing is, the media has grown and expanded with the Internet, and there are a lot of things that are noticed in today's world that previously would have gone by the wayside. 20 years ago, Star Wars Kid might have been picked up by the local newspaper in the form of a fluff piece about some local kid whose embarassing VHS tape got copied amongst his school peers. Our notability guidelines, well intentioned as they are, confound the concepts of "interesting" with "belongs in an encyclopedia"; were it up to me and my deletionist-leaning tendencies I'd scrap the whole notion and encourage the sorts of articles that one actually expects to see in an encyclopedia - I can pretty much guarantee that a traditional encyclopedia would never bother mentioning Puppy-throwing Marine viral video even if they had unlimited resources. It would simply be booted out based upon editorial discretion. Perhaps in the end I'll be proven wrong and the Wikipedia model will forge the way for academic resources of the future, but somehow I doubt it. Shereth 21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is simply an oversimplification and a misrepresentation of the GNG to summarize it as requiring only "2 independent news stories about a subject". Dlabtot (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why is that the most common application thereof? Shereth 03:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your assertion; I don't think it is accurate. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if I am incorrect in asserting that it is the "most common" application, you certainly cannot discount the fact that it is nevertheless an argument that is made and it is a valid interpretation of the GNG. Shereth 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, no, I don't think it is a valid interpretation of the GNG, since the GNG neither says that, nor implies it. Rather, what the GNG says is: ' The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. '

Whether it is 'an argument that is made' is clearly irrelevant to the question of whether it is a valid argument. Dlabtot (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, my complaint is best expressed as frustration with a common interpretation of the GNG based upon a somewhat open-ended requirement with regards to the number and type of sources. Shereth 19:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We have determined above that the GNG is imperfectly expressed on that point: multiple sources are always preferred, not just "generally" or "usually". The question remaining is not whether two sources are better than just one -- everyone agrees that two is better than one -- but whether multiple sources are "generally required" (=most of the time, if only one source exists, your article will get deleted), rather than just preferable (=two's nice, but most of the time we don't delete articles if you can find just one source). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Shereth makes some good points here. Also, the view expressed at the end of the opening post (i.e. "If Wikipedia has aspirations to be taken seriously as a source of information in the future") seems to suggest a POV held by elite accademics and their fellow thinkers who are a much smaller minority than the internet meme crew. Its a respectable and reasonable view but not the best for the peoples encyclopedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a 25-year old computer junkie who works a 9-5 job quite a drive away from the nearest university. But if you want to dismiss my opinion as elitist bourgeois snobbery, be my guest. In reality, I am one of the biggest culprits among my groups of friends when it comes to spamming them with amusing videos or webpages that I find online. But I don't think the mere fact that me and my friends find something amusing makes it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Oh, and as for calling it "the people's encyclopedia" - I totally agree with that goal. But my guess is that if we commissioned a poll, 95% or more of "the people" never heard of and don't give a damn about Crasher Squirrel. Niremetal (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Studies on contributors and readers show that we are over represented by male and younger people. If we are going to be the "People's Encyclopedia" then we need to find ways to appeal to more people. IMO, having loads of low quality, stale content hurts the credibility of Wikipedia and keep people from reading and editing. Tightening the notability guides for stand alone pages, and introducing a way to do systematic quality improvement will help. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion seems to be shared by some deletionist editors, however outside commentators in the quality press and elsewhere seem to hold almost the opposite view – that our overly demanding standards are driving away new contributors. As the number of active contributors is falling, we ought not to risk further alienating our user base. Instead loosening or even scrapping our notability guidelines should help, as should improvements to the quality of our editing environment – e.g. less prejudice against social activity, maybe a professional UI designer could be hired to prettify the user interface, raise awareness of the more attractive skins etc. Those are the sorts of measures that would help attract non youthful male contributors without doing more harm than good. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the ability of Wikipedia to raise money from those who use it is a testament to the opposite. Words by discontented journalists are cheap; dollars from real-world users are not. Eusebeus (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't seem to be denying Wikipedia is an excellent and positive phenomena, just that it could maybe be even better if it were more inclusionist . FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe we'd attract many more truly capable editors if we had a higher proportion of articles about serious scholarly issues, like hard science, and less garbage about the latest flash-in-the-pan music group or get-rich-quick scheme involving some unregulated herbal concoction being sold by multi-level marketing -- if we had a really good, reputable, serious information product, rather than a spam platform for garage bands and whatever interests a couple of kids this week.

There's no data to support either belief: your personal belief that maintaining Wikipedia's character as an encyclopedia is somehow driving away editors is no more provable than my belief that getting rid of trivial and unscholarly information would increase the quality of the encyclopedia and therefore eventually the quality (but not, I think, the number) of editors.

I think that we'd be silly to make policy decisions based on either your unsupportable view or mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)