Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Notability - very subjective when it comes to less glorious ancient history

Hi! I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and I am wondering what do you want to see in the articles to not have them marked for questionable notability? For example I created the stub Getica (Dio) and I was planning to expand on it, also was hoping that others will contribute content. I find this notability concept a bit distressing for an encyclopedia, since in my mind, people should be able to find everything in it. Articles which are stubs or less notable could be later expanded by others, but if they get removed due to lack of notability or content, I think chances for someone to contribute to them will decrease considerably. But more importantly, I find notability very subjective when it comes to ancient history (especially of less "glorious" nations who didn't conquer others), since inherently people know little about it, and probably many care less and less about the subject as the time is passing. More specifically, I am creating articles exactly on a subject which in its entirety could be inherently of questionable notability, the history of Dacians. We have a project that we created, WikiProject Dacia, which could be in peril due to certain interpretations of notability, since most people don't know and don't care about this subject. Yet, for people interested in history, this could be very useful and interesting, and a lot of little known content can be written or exposed to the world. I am working on the history of Dacia precisely because my number one goal is to make it known to the world. I think it is a little known history of the world which should be known, needs some justice and more research. But if the articles get "plagued" with notability markers, I find it very demotivating. Please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. --Codrinb (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about establishing notability for Getica (Dio), I very quick search of Google Scholar and Books provides plenty of evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are obviously independent of the subject. Their mere existence is sufficient to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Notability is very subjective no matter what the subject, genera or era. Please don't be demotivated by the tagging of articles on notability or other grounds--be challenged by them. A tag is just a concern by another editor that the article has some deficiencies. Use the tags as motivation to improve the articles within the guidelines of WP. Whatever the tag is about, research the guideline, ask questions if you need to and make the appropriate improvements to the article. For example, the Getica (Dio) is about a book, therefore you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability (books) to see how to bring it in line with the guideline. In short, Notability is all about citing reliable sources WP:RS It is your job as an editor (as is all editors) to understand what is and is not a reliable source as well as how much coverage is needed to demonstrate notability. That said, more importantly you must realize that you are an editor of equal standing among all WP editors and when another editor tags an article for notability, it should not be seen as a challenge to you as a editor, but merely a mechanism to improve WP articles. Whenever you encounter a notability (or other tag) and you believe it is unwarranted or you have corrected the issues, remove the tag, leave a meaningful edit summary and/or a note on the article talk page. Its all about improving the Encyclopedia and you as a welcome contributor and member of the community are part of the process. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This is comforting. I will follow your suggestions on this. Unlike Getica (Dio), the Getica (Criton) and Getica (Pârvan) articles were removed/merge into related articles, without being marked for notability. One of the sections from Getica (disambiguation) was also removed as well. Is this a common practice? I was planning to expand them and/or invite others to collaborate by creating the stubs first. I guess I don't get this as I would never remove articles. I prefer to create or expand content. --Codrinb (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Codrinb :-) I won't return on Vasile Parvan and Dio's works, as we spoke of this before, but I'll just add that since no new content was present in the 2 history books articles respect the two historians' articles, then I thought it better to merge. I also, as you noted, removed Getica (region) from the list; the source that mentioned the use of the name was written in 1844 and the name is just thrown in a bunch of names. Also, I think it's a misprinting, as under Latin rules Getica is not a singular substantive (to be correct it should have to be "Getia", probably). I tried searching Getica as a region in Google books among modern scholarship, but I didn't find anything.Aldux (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's no notable 'Getic' region but I don't think that is a misprint. Getica in Latin is an adjective (borrowed or adapted from Greek). In Latin, if it refers to a region, it can mean something like terra Getica or regio Getica. For similar adjectives becoming nouns see Cyrenaica or Illyricum. Daizus (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Codrinb. A topic doesn't have to be popular right now for it to be historically notable. The relevant section of the guideline that would apply in this case is Notability is not temporary. If you can find reliable sources which discuss the topic from any time period they should be good enough for notability to be met. Generally speaking, our notability guidelines are given some lenience towards historical topics reliable sources are presumed to exist. As long as the material within the article is verified it should be relatively safe from deletion. ThemFromSpace 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Or (Lists)

SNG, in the following, is likely to refer to Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines which is the target of WP:SNG - i presume for "Specific Notability Guideline".Jerzy•t 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooterwalker,

This page previously said 'the subject is (probably) notable if it complies with both WP:N and WP:NOT'. Your text said 'the subject is (probably) notable if it complies with either WP:N or any of the SNGs.' This is a substantial and misleading change in meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT has nothing to do with notability. WP:NOT is a second test for a viable article. That is correct with how Shooterwalker is writing it. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree... WP:NOT is important and should be linked... but it isn't really about notability. We should definitely mention and link to WP:NOT in this guideline, but in a different way. Blueboar (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

NOT has quite a lot to do with whether a subject qualifies for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, as mere indiscriminate collections of information and directory listings do not qualify, no matter what we write on this page, because NOT prohibits them. A subject that complies with this page, but does not comply with NOT, does not get an article, and therefore is not 'notable' in wikijargon.

But even if we ignored NOT, there are other problems: Unlike the GNG, the SNGs do not all create a rebuttable presumption of notability: some of them seem to declare that their subjects are definitely and absolutely notable. Furthermore, if we present this as an "either/or proposition", most inexperienced editors will assume that compliance with 'all of the above' will never be required (it frequently is), or that their personal choice about which SNG to apply is all that matters—which means that they'll be in for a nasty shock at AFD, when editors delete their creations over failing to comply with the other editors' choice of guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing... you are correct that WP:NOT has quite a lot to do with whether a subject qualifies for an article... but that does not necessarily mean that it relates to the concept of notability. What you are talking about there is article Viability, which is slightly different than topic Notability. Notability of the topic is a requirement for Viability of an article... but it isn't the only requirement. WP:NOT covers (most of) the others. I agree with your comments regarding the SNGs. Blueboar (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel strongly enough to make an issue out of it. When I say I was trying not to change the meaning, I was perfectly happy with the old/current wording. I was trying to satisfy people who felt the guideline wasn't clear enough that WP:N is just one guideline, and you have to pass others. If anyone has a better way to make that clear... I'd support it. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, please see the very first sentence of the guideline: "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article."

A subject that merits its own article is notable; a subject that does not is non-notable.

Whether it merits the article (or not) because of some sentence on this page or some sentence at NOT (or some criterion at an SNG) is irrelevant: If it doesn't merit its own article, it is not notable. "The concept of notability" directly equals "whether the subject qualifies for an article"—exactly and precisely, a perfect overlap in the Venn diagram of Wikipedia's conceptual map. There is no other definition. Notability is the only requirement—but notability is only partly explained by the text on this single guideline page (so notability ≠ WP:N). Notability is additionally defined, explained, and controlled by NOT and the SNGs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given how contentious notability is on WP, we need to limit its method of discussion and determination to guidelines. WP:NOT is a policy, and we have had problems introducing concepts of notability within NOT before, which is why we need to avoid considering WP:NOT as a means to determine notability.

The point I've tried to state is that given an article, we determine its viability through several metrics. It needs to be verifiable; it needs to be neutral; it needs to be lacking of original research; it needs to not be the type of articles we do not include; it needs to be a notable topic; it needs to be discriminate; it needs to be more than just a stub; etc. etc. Notability is a means towards article viability, but not the only means of measuring viability. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the list you've currently named:

1. It needs to be [possible for the content to be] verifiable
2. It needs to be [possible for the content to be] neutral
3. It needs to be lacking of original research
4. It needs to not be the type of articles we do not include
5. It needs to be a notable topic
6. It needs to be discriminate
7. It needs to be [possible for the content to be] more than just a stub

Right?

Here's what I'm saying: The definition of #5 is all the other numbers. That is, a notable topic = 1+2+3+4+6+7.

It is therefore actually impossible to accurately define "notable topic" without reference to NOT.

I understand the political considerations: One might find it necessary to be diplomatic about how one identifies #4 as part of the definition. But this is the definition, and the definition describes what the community has long called notability, not "viability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not correct at all. Notability, for all practical purposes, has nothing to do with the content of the article beyond the proof that the topic is notable through its coverage. An article on a topic that is clearly notable can fail any of the other concepts provided as well. Notability, through the GNG, is meant to try to incorporate all those elements to improve what topics are included in WP, but by no means was meant to a minimum replacement for them. That's why its necessarily to understand the connectivity of all these but observed them as all mutually exclusive elements that all must be satisfied. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Massem. For an article to be viable, its topic needs to be notable... but, being the fact that the topic is notable does not mean the article is viable. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So you two believe that the first sentence in this guideline is completely wrong, and has been for years. Shall we now start a page called WP:Viability, to tell people that to qualify for a stand-alone article, the topic must meet WP:N plus six other criteria?

Personally, I think that if you took the first sentence to the community, and asked "Is this what we mean when we say a topic is "notable", they'd say yes. But apparently you two disagree. Perhaps you'd like to propose a different first sentence that defines notability according to your view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am of the mind of WAID in asking the same question. The primary reason to delete an article is that it is non-notable. Most other reasons (excluding many technical and legal reasons) are really extensions of the notable/non-notable threshold. Articles can run afoul of two categories of policies/guideline. 1) an article is notable or non-notable. If found to be non-notable, it is deleted. 2) an article has NPOV, OR or other content issues. These are almost always fixable content issues and result from editorial decisions. If there was a WP:Viability guideline, what would be the consequence of failure to comply? What is the fate of an otherwise notable, but non-viable article? Is it deletion? Or is viability merely a content issue, a condition that results from good editorial work that ensures article content is NPOV, not OR, and inline with the MOS? Any policy or guideline must have consequences if it is violated. What is the consequence of a violation of the WP:Viability guideline? --Mike Cline (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful to write an essay about common hurdles that a good article or list needs to pass. But otherwise, notability is just notability. It's one guideline. It's commonly cited. But there are others and they all matter. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To WhatamIdoing, the reason the word "presumed" is used is that passing the GNG is not a 100% assurance you will have an article on a topic. It has always been the case that other content policies can determine that an article is inappropriate. (and for what its worth, there's probably well more than 6 other criteria, those are ones I can list off) I see no conflict with WP:N's language in this interpretation. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? GNG is not Notability. It is one (often applicable) method of determining one aspect of notability. The GNG is not, in and of itself, Notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, while it is true that most articles are deleted strictly on notability grounds and not for any other content policy, when we start considering lists and spinouts and how we're trying to apply notability to them, then these other content guidelines and policies start coming into play. A spinout that is highly focused on one point - while notable by the parent article connection, will likely fail POV. A list of trivial points from a work of fiction will likely fail from NOR. Etc. So that's why it's necessary to see that notability is bound to affect core prose articles while the other content policies will impact non-prose, non-main articles. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

M. Here's where I struggle with the idea that list-style articles have different burdens than prose style articles. Since theoretically (and practically in my view) an article whose content lended itself to an enumerative style (a list) could also be written in 100% prose with the exact same content. A single article topic could be written in two different styles. We chose the appropriate style for readability and organization. Why would one style bear additional burdens that the other would not when the content was identical? Our inclusion policies and guidelines (NPOV, OR, Notability) need to apply to article topics and content and not discriminate between article styles. Indeed if one carefully looks at reasons for deletion (a policy) there is absolutely nothing in that list that cites article style as a reason for deletion. Most translate to We delete inappropriate topics which for the most part is determined by our notability guidelines. Content is deleted when it fails NPOV, OR, V, etc. We all agree that list can be a problematic style, but establishing additional burdens based on style, not topic or content will create more problems and solve very few. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think list articles have different (or additional) burdens than prose articles... but style does affect the implementation and interpretation of those burdens. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point and makes a lot of sense. But we also have to keep in mind common practice. And in practice, people invent a lot more original or even bizarre topics for lists. I rarely look at an article and find that it's gone indiscriminate because you're usually talking about one thing. But lists go indiscriminate quite easily, because they lend themselves to grouping different kinds of information... some of which never belonged together in the first place. I can't imagine WP:SALAT would say anything entirely new. It would really just be an application of a few guidelines that tend to come up for bad lists. (e/c... Blueboar seems to basically agree.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just list articles here - this is about any type of article that covers a topic but is not the main article on that topic. If WP has no size issues, all these questions disappear as the main article on a topic can include all these lists and all spunout prose articles in the single article. Thus, for lists and spinouts, it's not necessarily about treating notability any differently but about how all the other criteria come into play, would the contents of the list or spinout (if not notable topics in of themselves) be included in the main article barring size? So we still have to ask questions about WP:V, WP:OR, etc. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

There are some technical limitiations when article size makes it nearly impossible to edit.陣内_Jinnai 22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I've understood it, WP:N doesn't govern article content. Since these spun out articles are (should be) extensions of a parent article that are put on their own due to space considerations, it seems to follow that these articles would fall into the category of content rather than articles, and thus their existence should be held to criteria for content, not criteria like WP:N. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.... As soon as you spin something out and create an article... it is no longer content within some other article. It is a new article. WP:NOTE applies. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why it's necessary to consider the notability of the "topic" and not of the article. A spunout article on a topic will still retain that topic as its main topic - you're not creating a new one. Which is why, for lists, we can justify that the notability of X be shown for "List of Xs" to presume notability of "List of Xs". Similarly, if I extract a prose section "Y of X" from the main article to a spinout, the topic is still "X" for notability evaluation. But all the other points I listed above about V/NOR/NPOV become even more critical than evaluating notability. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we can say that a spunout article will necessarily retain that the same topic as its parent...For example, I might start with American Revolution and spin out Battles of the American Revolution (arguably the same topic) ... but I might also spin out Effects of the American Revolution (arguably a very different topic). Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

True, there are cases of spinout articles that can be notable topics on their own right. Still doesn't change that not all spinouts that we accept on WP are whole notable topics in their own right - we strongly discourage spinning out content for no reason and would like people to gear spinouts to notable topics, but with SIZE in place, we are going to have cases of spinouts that are necessary but without a new topic (as the case for most lists). --MASEM (t) 15:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But I have to question whether we do allow spinning out something that isn't notable in its own right. Two of our core policies, WP:V and WP:NOR, both say that if there are no sources that cover something, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (and if there are sources that cover it, then notability can be established). Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability are two different things (though by showing notability, you should effectively be showing sourcing). And requiring spun out content to be notable in its own right puts us right back at Gavin's arguments against lists. There's a reason that notability refers to a "topic" and not to "articles", because a broad notable topic may span several articles (eg a notable TV show with separate articles for an episode list, season lists, and possibly characters) --MASEM (t) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

They may be different, but they are intimately related. Sourcing is how we demonstrate Notability (ie you have it backwards... by showing sourcing you effectively show notability). For us to create a spun off sub-article (whether it is in list or prose format) the sub-topic must itself be notable (as demonstrated by being able to cite sources that discuss it). Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Drop the Words and Step Away From The Talk Page - Guys, we just wrote the sentences that said what makes a SAL notable and now it seems we don't know how to apply what we said. The genesis of a SAL topic is absolutely unimportant to the application of the guideline we just wrote. A SAL topic is notable if: ...... That's all we need to know. Where it came from might provide useful insights to its notability and guide our selection of article titles, but it doesn't matter. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If I have misunderstood, forgive me... I thought we were now talking about non-SALs (or those where there is dispute as to whether it is a SAL). Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In the 1965 movie Whats New Pussycat, Peter O'Toole asked Paula Prentiss the following question. Are you a Virgin?, Paula answered: No, I am a semi-virgin. Peter replied, What is God's Name is a semi-virgin? and Paula replied When I am in Europe I am a virgin, when I am home in the U.S. I am not. So, to sum up my frustration here and parrot Peter O'Toole: What in God's name is a non-SAL?. I don't think they exist or should they and even if we created a non-SAL delineation, we wouldn't know how to define it. Apart from the pesky set-index articles and DABS, a SAL is a SAL, is a SAL. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A non-SAL would be a list that was created without spinning it out from a main article and does not meet the notability guidelines. I know it sounds kind of hard to define, as it may be hard to find those lists, but if they cannot in their first lead paragraph link to their parent topic, its questionable whether it meets this or the other notability guidelines. List of stereoscopic video games is an example of something that imo does not meet the definition because while stereoscopic and video game are notable topics articles, stereoscopic video games doesn't appear to be at this time.

The problem really comes when you have something closer to Bluebear's dilemia: American Revolution spun off into Battles of the American Revolution and {List of) Effects of the American Revolution. In this its clear that you cannot talk about the American Revolution as a comprehesive subject without mentioning the battles, but it may be possible to talk about it without talking about its effects beyond the immediate one that occured - the formation of the US as an independent nation (although it probably isn't). On the other hand, it may not be nessasary for Anglo-Zanzibar War to have Battles of the Anglo-Zanzibar War, but may have Effects of the Anglo-Zanzibar War listed if enough details are found. It all depends upon the subject and that's why it is probably impossible to define something too concrete.陣内_Jinnai 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

List of stereographic video games is a SAL. If stereographic video games have been discussed by reliable sources as group, then it meets the new list notability language we just added. The fact that no Stereographic Video Game article exists does not invalidate the list and a notable parent article is not a prerequisite to a valid list. Indeed, if stereographic video games have been discussed as a group by reliable sources, it is most likely notable because someone has probably discussed it as a specific type of game (maybe the same sources). No one has written it just yet. But the existance of a notable parent is not and should not be a condition for a list. We are certainly informed about the notability of a list topic if the parents of a list are notable, but not a prerequisite. A SAL, is a SAL, is a SAL. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we close this discussion for being out of scope, and for being too contentious to find a consensus. There's some very civil and lucid arguments here... it's just not going to lead us anywhere. Does it matter why or how an article comes to be created? Some people think there's the difference between a WP:SPINOUT and a truly new article. Other people (such as myself) believe that an article is just an article and that we refer to WP:AVOIDSPLIT and verifiability (which says that all articles require third-party sources). But that's not confined to being a list issue. It's not even a confined to being a notability issue. That's more of an issue for the guideline on the summary style and not something we're going to resolve anytime soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that stereoscopic video games has not as far as I can tell been discussed by reliable sources, although I haven't checked recently.陣内_Jinnai 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And SW I will be quiet after this. Indeed there may not be reliable sources that discuss the list topic as a group. If so, the topic is not notable by our new guideline. It still is a SAL. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "discuss as a group" may be too much; I would prefer "classify as a group" because a lot of RSes will group things together, but may not do more than trivial talk about them.陣内_Jinnai 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

• The kinds of articles I feel are most affected by this discussion are "in popular culture" articles, which have had a checkered history I have been involved with. As discuss went, I think the general consensus is that as a category, they should exist, but individual articles should be evaluated on a case by case basis. With that in mind, I think part of what we need to look at here has to do with the apparent conflict with three main ideas.

The first is that the topic of every article should warrant it being stand alone content. The seconds is that some articles have subjects that are really big. The third is that articles can only get so long before they have to get split. Thus, since this encyclopedia is made for it's readers, in the interest of readability, there will be some cases when content is split out, and because keeping the content in a single article would make the subject too big to digest, WP:N does not apply. Basically some articles get a pass because [WP:IAR|no rule is absolute]]. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the need to split off content. However, some content is not notable on its own, and should not be split out. This is especially true when we get into splitting off entire sub-topics. We need some standard by which we determine which sub-topics should be split out... and I think Notability is the key to that. Sub-topics that are notable on their own can be split off... but sub-topics that are not notable on their own should not be. Notability is not inherited, therefore when we split a sub-topic out, we need to establish that the sub-topic is notable on its own. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability is great for some cases, but cannot work for all, particularly given how subjective it is to start. If I have 200k of appropriate encyclopedic information on a notable topic, I have to engage in at least one split to present that content to users per WP's technical requirements/limitations. Notability does not limit the content that we provide for a given subject once that subject is notable - that's limited by the other content policies (WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV primarily). So yes, it is very possible that one can create a spinout (list or prose or otherwise) that technically is notable because it's topic is notable, but that the content of the spinout is just not appropriate. Understand how that all works is understand how we have to engage in a minimal amount of original research to assemble and present summarized information on topics in a manner best suited for Wikipedia. This is the point it took forever in the RFC to talk past Gavin on, and still remains true.

Remember, notability is one facet of making sure WP remains relevant by avoid indiscriminate inclusion of information by assuring that a topic at least has deeper sources to talk about it more than just a few basic facts. When we talk about spinouts, the concept of indiscriminate inclusion is still there as we judge the contents of the spinout per the content guidelines and policies. Having notable spinouts is great, but it is an impractical limitation added to WP:SIZE if it is treated as the only metric. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that's always the case. Examples of classes that I think get automatic notability pass are: musician discography, lists of works by an author, lists of television episodes, lists of computer software, lists of fictional characters, lists of awards given or received. If you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and look at some of the lists, I think you will find more than a handful of ones with questionable notability, but they remain because it is generally accepted that certain kinds of content is best organized separate from a main topic. Does this mean we shouldn't hold articles to the notability test? Of course not, but notability is a general rule, not the absolute rule, and there will be some cases in which notability is not the most important criteria. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that makes much sense. No topic can be presumed automatically notable.. we must go out and find the sources that show notability for every article on Wikipedia. There are plenty of nonnotable list ideas for fictional characters, television episodes, and computer software. This being said I completely agree with Blueboar's point on subtopics needing to be notable in their own right (if the topic isn't notable than it doesn't need a separate article). ThemFromSpace 17:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability can only apply to a topic, not an article. The contrary point is: when we look at an article, we should first determine what the topic is, and then determine if that topic is notable. This was a core result of the RFC on lists: For "List of X", the topic is not "List of X" (though it can be in limited cases), but instead "X", and so we judge the notability of "X". Regardless if it is the main article on a topic or a list supporting it, the article still must meet V, NOR, and NPOV and all other content policies, but notability only applies to the topic itself. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree your the application of our content policies, but I do so, quite strongly with the application of notability, regardless of the consensus at the RfC. Each article is its own topic (and this topic is what must be notable). This holds true for regular articles, list articles, criticism articles, etc. For a regular article X, X must be notable. For a "list of X" article, the list itself must be notable. For a "criticism of X" article, the criticism must itself be notable. For the latter two cases, if the list or the criticism aren't notable we shouldn't have a subject on it. This holds true for all pages designated as an articles (opposed to functional pages such as disambiguations and categories). Simply put, no two pages in the encyclopedia are about the same exact topic. ThemFromSpace 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The RFC results are counter to this, and what took forever with arguing with Gavin who insisted on this point. Topics can - and per SIZE - and sometimes have to span multiple articles. Ideally each subarticle is notable, but it cannot be a requirement as long as SIZE exists and that notability does not limit coverage, otherwise you have a logjam. This is why, at the end of the day, notability remains a guideline - because strict application of it creates problems with numerous existing policy and guidelines, and we have to recognize when to relax it - just enough - to organize and present information to the reader in the best possible way. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually... Gavin was insisting on a much more radical point, that it's original research to summarize what sources say in your own words. Applied to lists, he believed that Wikipedia lists had to cover real life lists that exist elsewhere. The position you're talking about is actually pretty mainstream, even if people disagree in good faith. Some people believe you can spin out non notable subjects and they're really just an extended part of the main article. Some people believe that a spinout is still a new article, and thus you have to apply rules such as if there are no third party sources on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and avoid splitting out sections that aren't independently notable. I personally agree with Themfromspace that you need good sourcing to create an entire article devoted to a topic, even if that topic is just a different spin on the topic of another article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that most of this problem can be solved by remembering that "article" does not always equal "page". List of diseases (Y), for example, is not really a separate list-article: It is one part of a single article, "List of diseases", that just happens to be presented on about 30 separate pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And that is the key point. When an article is split due to SIZE, the content in the new page is an extension of the same article, and thus it has already gotten a pass on the notability criteria. Wither it meets other standards (such as actually being needed) is a question for other guidelines. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree... We can not simply say "Splitting creates two articles on the same topic." What gets split off and how you split it makes a big difference. Yes, it is possible that the new article can sometimes be an extension of the original article... but it is also possible that sometimes you end up with an article about a very different topic. Notability has to be independently established. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of other metrics to determine when a split is not appropriate beyond notability hence the frequent pointers to WP:NOT, WP:V, etc. for that determination. Again, the same idea back to "Lists of X" in that even if X is notable, "List of X" may not be due to other policy. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are other metrics... but the existence of other metrics does not rule out Notability as a metric. When one splits off a sub-topic into its own article, that sub-topic should be notable. Blueboar (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This takes us back to the above conversation: I simply do not believe that "notability" is a single metric, and that the independent metrics (GNG, NOT, SNGs, etc) are separate from it. Instead, I believe that notability is the net result of evaluating a topic against those specific metrics. (Perhaps you mean "GNG or SNG" when you say "notability"?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But it is. At least notability - with the GNG and the SNG under it, is one metric to judge whether a topic can have an article. But as I mentioned before, we use the language "presumed" because other policy and guidelines can override that. More than likely, WP:NOT can prevent an article on a notable topic from being created if the only way to approach that topic is discluded per WP:NOT. Same with things like WP:BLP1E. WP:NOT and other policy cannot fall under notability as notability only has the strength of consensus as a guideline and nothing more. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you're conflating separate entities. Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline. The contents of this guideline are not the complete definition of the concept of notability on Wikipedia. If you turn up with a well-sourced, but still indiscriminate, collection of information at AFD, people will tell you that "List of US Presidents that eat eggs" is not notable -- not notable because it fails NOT, rather that not notable because it fails GNG, but still "not notable".

Again, the community consensus on what we mean when we say something is "notable" is right there, in plain text, in the very first sentence of this page -- where it says, "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." NB that it does not say, "On Wikipedia, notability is whether or not a subject meets GNG or a SNG; the combination of notability plus other factors, like the policy NOT, determines whether a topic merits its own article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Break 3

Then you create an impossible conflict with the results of the RFC - that "List of X" has a topic of "X" 9which thus must be notable) , not "List of X" as the topic.

And remember, notability is a guideline - when it conflicts with improving the work, it should be ignored. If common sense and consensus feels a spinout is needed but cannot show notability of the exact topic of the sublist, we ignore notability and let it stay.

I understand the concerns here - that without metrics to guide when things are split off, people could make spinoff articles that most would likely say isn't appropriate but could be defended because the core topic that it was spun off from was notable. Now, I think it's necessary to have some aspect of notability. "List of stories of no-name English Lit Major" isn't going to fly next to "List of stories of Arthur C. Clarke", because the no-name lit major is just not notable. So it's not saying that spinouts have to meet notability, it's understanding that the topic of spinouts may be the topic that it was spunout from. At that point, if that reliance on the main topic is necessary, we have to judge if the spinout was necessary in the first place. The process is manageable. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. But that's beside the point... This is one of those issues that runs much deeper than the RFC on lists. For some people a spinout is a special class of article... and for others an article is just an article. This has obvious implications for lists. But we're not going to be able to settle this issue right here right now... The best we can do is a guideline that says "yes, lists should be about notable groups of things". Which means it will have to be a case-by-case basis whether a list has enough sourcing from a related article, or whether that list will need enough sourcing to verify its own notability. I tend to believe all lists will need their own sourcing... but perhaps there are enough editors who share Masem's point of view. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the core result of the RFC to add to here was "lists should be about notable groups of things" and not "lists should be about groups of notable things / things of a notable topic", then the RFC has been for naught because we haven't changed anything. I thought we all concluded (painstakingly getting stuck in the details with Gavin) that barring all complex cases, that the topic of "List of X" is X, and not the list itself, and that the original wording being put into WP:N here that started all this reflected that. (And of course, a notable grouping of things would have always been included, as that alone met the existing GNG). While I know we're talking spinouts and other things here and the RFC (as I read it) concluded the most fundamental issue on lists (eg only talking List of X, and not List of Y of X), lists and general spinouts are related, and what guidelines we set for lists must also reflect what is done in practice for spinouts. If it is the case that people strongly disagree about List of X being notable due to X being notable - then we shouldn't be doing anything here until an uninvolved admin summarizes the RFC to determine what the consensus actually was. But again, my reading of that RFC implies strong support for this position unless I am completely misreading things (and granted, with all the rabbit holes we went down, that's quite possible). --MASEM (t) 04:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: I have never agreed that "X" in the title "List of X" is always the topic of the list. See here for a real-world problem caused by this kind of mindless belief that the article title is the sole determinant of the list selection criteria.

So, Masem, this "all" you're making assertions about is definitely less than "all". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If I were facilitating this discussion in person (my day job) things would seem much simpler to everyone. As I read through the comments in this thread, it appears on the surface that there is significant disagreement. But really, there isn’t. The flow of the discussion seems a bit dysfunctional because we are a group of editors discussing the virtues and shortfalls of individual gifts in a large holiday gift basket. There are just too many things in the basket to talk about them all individually at once. Joe says: The chocolate covered cherries are stale and the Huckleberry jam tastes like Raspberry. I agree with Joe says Bob, the Earl Grey tea was a nice touch, but I think he got it wrong on the Raspberry Torte. If I were an outsider in this discussion, I wouldn’t really know what the real point was as we are all over the map.

So, here’s a little outline that I would use to simplify this discussion. I call it the Genesis of a List.

• Step 1: I want to create a new list. I must give the list a title. I chose List of Zs. (it could equally be Zs of A). There are lots of Zs and I have reliable sources that have enumerated many of them in a variety of different ways. In fact the article on Zs lists about 1% of available Zs as examples. Since a great many (but not all) of the Zs have articles in WP, I feel comfortable creating a List of Zs. If I were to ask myself what policies must I adhere to when creating the list, I would answer WP:NOTE. The topic of the list should demonstrate notability, ie. Zs should have been discussed by reliable source as a group. Although my list cannot just be a title, it must have content, the list topic I’ve chosen, Zs meets the 1st hurdle, notability--It has been discussed as a group by reliable sources.
• Step 2: My List of Zs is pure and simple an enumeration of Zs. But what Zs, there are too many Zs for one list. Some Zs are really marginal Zs and not covered by sources. Some Zs are extraordinarily important and have their own WP articles. Many Zs are important, have been covered by sources, but don’t have articles. What Zs do I include? My task is relatively simple. How am I going to organize my list of Zs—alphabetical, chronological, taxonomically, geographically, how?. Second, I need to spell out very clearly in the lead which Zs may be included in the list? There’s a bit of common sense applied at this stage, but inclusion criteria is generally much easier to develop when informed by sources. If sources typically discuss Zs geographically, then a geographical organization and geographically related inclusion criteria might prove useful. When I ask myself, what WP guidelines governs this step, I would answer primarily WP:List and WP:SAL. Additionally, I must make sure that my inclusion criteria and organization doesn’t run afoul of WP:NPOV and if I really can’t inform my inclusion criteria with sources, WP:OR. The second thing I would recognize about this step is that other editors might want to expand or contract inclusion criteria or reorganize the entries as the list matures in an attempt to make it a better list. I have to accept that my list may evolve.
• Step 3: To complete my initial List of Zs I need to add individual entries. 1st, those entries must be consistent with the inclusion criteria I have laid on. If not, some editors will come along an remove the entry. Depending on the nature of the entry, I may need to provide a specific source that confirms indeed that my individual Z meets the inclusion criteria in List of Zs. Again this step is pretty much governed by WP:List and WP:SAL, but certainly informed by WP:NPOV and WP:OR if sourcing of a particular entry is lacking or suspect.

Three steps. All three are critical to the creation of a viable list. But only step 1 is related to Notability. Steps 2 and 3 are made easier, and actually in my view, stem directly from the successful completion of Step 1, but they are not part of Step 1. This discussion is about Step 1, not Steps 2 or 3. If it is, it is the wrong place. And if we cannot agree that despite some individual issues with the items in the gift basket, overall it was a great basket, we are in trouble. SIMPLIFY Happy Holidays and enjoy those gift baskets.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the following scenario... Wikipedia has an article on notable topic A. That article includes a list of Bs that have a connection to A. Bs are interesting when discussed in the context of topic A... but they may not be notable on their own. The article on A is getting overly long... and I would like to split off the list of B's into a stand alone list. Don't I have to establish that Bs are notable when I do so? Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would contend that your new list: "List of Bs of A" would most likely pass the notability test by the mere fact that they were logically enumerated in the Article A. Now, indeed no one may have cited a specific source that enumerated the Bs relation to A, but logic says those sources exist if indeed Bs of A is a logical embedded list. Remember, the burden is discussed as a group, any enumeration of Bs in relation to A, even if it represents only 5% of the available Bs is suitable to demonstrate notability of the topic Bs of A. My admonition would always be that Bs of A should be able meet the notability burden, while realizing that the ease or difficulty of that is so contextually dependent on the specific topic, sourcing and genesis of the topic that any hard and fast rule that tries to cover every possible iteration will be more confusing than helpful. Clearly the test as to whether any given list meets notability (and other viability guidelines) is in the deletion process. The notability test, the life and death of article under deletion discussion needs to remain incredibly simple. I believe the current notability guideline is straight forward and easy to apply. This is not a DNA test. Its akin to a doctor taking your temperature. You either are at 98.6 degrees or you are not. The farther away you get from the norm in either direction, the more probabilty there is a problem, the solution being determined by a lot of other things as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the burden of discussing Bs within the context of the article A is not the same as the burden for having a separate article on Bs. To mention Bs within the context of article A, the Bs don't need to be "discussed as a group"... To discuss (or list) Bs within the context of article A, we need sources that show each individual B is in some way connected to A. The sources used to support that connection that may not discuss Bs as a group. Indeed they may even be primary sources (and we need secondary sources to support the notability a topic.) It may be logical to assume that secondary sources that discuss Bs as a group exist... but I have come across many situations where that assumption has proven incorrect... where contrary to logic, sources that discuss something as a group don't actually exist.

We agree on the basic simple strait forward situation... where we have a notable topic X and want to create List of X. We need to develop some consensus on establishing notability in more complex situations (as those are the ones that cause most of the arguments and debates). Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(This has nothing directly to do with the present language trying to be added, but trying to figure out how to go forward)

What if, tomorrow, the Foundation told all the projects that due to performance problems, they can handle many requests but of smaller size, and thus requested all projects to keep page sizes to 75k. What would we do here? Delete information to get it to 75k? Heck no, we'd likely create spinouts, and likely most won't have a new topic that is notable for them, but would be notable because of the parent topic. What needs to be understood is that our electronic format introduces a size element that, at best, could be considered to be like the limitation on how much text can go on one page of a printed encyclopedia - but a printed encyclopedia doesn't limit the extent of one article to what fits on one printed page. I have no problem with having spinouts reestablish why the spinout should exist - if only to reestablish the parent topic's notability and what sources are their to discuss the spinout, as unlike the printed work where I can just flip back one page to review that, there's no implicit function here on WP for that. But given all that, and the fact that SIZE has been rather arbitrarily chosen, the reason why a spinout is needed cannot simply be due to notability; it can be one of many possible reasons, and it is likely the strongest of all those other arguments for it, but it cannot be the only one, otherwise, we can never cover topics at the same depth as printed encyclopedias. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No matter what the size is set at, I would hold that spin-outs have to demonstrate notability. Blueboar (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Punting

Mike Cline is right that this guideline doesn't do everything. There are some issues this guideline remains silent on, and we avoided at the RFC. Some issues we even avoided on purpose.

1. This first one is for Masem... Is there such a thing as a spin-out or do all articles stand alone? (And do all lists stand alone by association?) It never came up in the list RFC because it cuts to the heart of all articles on Wikipedia. If anything there's rules like WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:PROVEIT that say all articles need high quality sources of their own. But even if you disagree... this is an issue much bigger than the RFC and unfortunately we'll have to debate it at each AFD or have an RFC on WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
2. This second one is for WhatamIdoing... are editors allowed to make up their own criteria for a list to make it more viable, or will that violate WP:MADEUP and WP:OR? Again... there are more than enough people who think it always has to come back to what sources say, not what some Wikipedian wants. But even if you disagree... it's bigger than the RFC and goes back to whether WP:MOSBEGIN needs to be verified. The "mindless belief" that existed before the RFC will unfortunately keep coming up at at least a few more AFDs. (Until we have another RFC.)
3. This third one is for myself... I was hoping we could reign in some of the absurd "List of anime with blue haired characters" or "List of Presidents with school age children" types of lists... But I have to admit that I might be overreaching. We said "let's leave it for now" to keep the RFC simple...
4. A fourth one is navigational lists. We don't know how notability applies to lists that are merely indexes of articles. It adds another load of complications because they're just so different.

The RFC did not settle every single issue. AFDs are not going to become a bright line test any time soon. So if we punted on all those issues... what did we accomplish? We settled one very important piece of the debate.

• One or two people believed that lists should only be about actual real-life lists. Nixon's enemy list. Billboard Hot 100. It's a ridiculous position because it would delete 90% of the lists we have.
• There were also a few people who wanted notability to be inherited for some lists. If you've been in Wikipedia longer than three months... you know what critics would say to that.

What we're left with is some kind of middle ground. Lists should be notable in the sense that they're based on third-party sources. It's not the high bar set by Gavin. It's not even a standard where every list member needs to be notable. The idea is simple: every acceptable list starts by finding an excerpt from a third-party source that talks about a group/set/class of things. All other issues are open. Expect these issues to come up at your next AFD... along with arguing whether the third-party talked directly about the topic of the list, or talked around it. We can't settle every debatable issue on Wikipedia... but we've chipped away at one. Let's use it as a starting point for the next RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, no, WP:V is the requirement for sourcing for spinouts (lists or otherwise); the advice on spinouts only says that spinouts should (not must) be notable, but obviously all other policies must be followed. The point I'm trying to make is that, per how Mike described it, is that for "List of Xs" where the concept of Xs as a grouping should be notable to be appropriate, that immediately reflects on spinouts (which these lists often are) in that the full comprehensive notability of a spinout may not need to be established if the parent topic is notable, though the concept of the subject itself needs to be sourced. It is understanding that these lists and spinouts are meant to be creations from SIZE issues, and not just because an editor feels they can create a topic on it. My concern is that whatever we add for lists (which seems more or less close to agreement) must apply to how spinouts are treated already. I'm not asking for any direct language on it, and likely another RFC is needed to be more explicit about whatever language is there. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we're coming to an understanding... we definitely agree that notability applies to lists the way that notability applies to all articles now. The only thing we disagree on is how notability has applied to spinouts all along. The good news is THIS guideline is silent about spinouts and so we can both respect this guideline. The bad news is that means will mean we'll be revisiting the spinout issue at a few controversial AFDs, and probably another RFC. But that's okay when you consider the progress we've made. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have made progress. My point is that more progress can be made. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just don't want to squander our gains by overreaching too soon. I think it might be best if we wrap this up as "good so far" and pick it up again in the new year, after holidays. This discussion has definitely given us a few ideas of where we could go. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Q: "are editors allowed to make up their own criteria for a list"?
A: Yes, within limits.

Longer answer: Even if it is possible to create a fully sourced, absolutely complete list, editors are allowed—even encouraged—to set the criteria higher than "the item is verifiably part of the set". For example, it might be entirely possible to create a fully sourced, absolutely complete list of every single person ever born on a given small island, but we don't actually want that, even if there's are dozens of books and scholarly sources discussing "Births on Island X" and providing complete lists.

Sometimes we need to set semi-arbitrary limits. For example, it should be possible to create a list, complete with reliable sources, of people accused of cheating on their taxes during the 1930s—but a better set of criteria might be people convicted of a felony-level tax evasion, and the case was notorious enough to be publicly reported in media at the time, rather than anybody whose criminal record shows any sort of tax problem, no matter how trivial.

In short, setting the inclusion criteria for the list is (part of) the act of choosing the topic, and choosing the topic is always a decision taken by editors, regardless of whether the article is list or prose. Sources and other factors (all adding up to "notability") determine whether you get to keep the page, but they do not tell you what you want to write about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with you. You make a very nuanced point, and I have to agree in some areas. But the main issue is that it never received sufficient discussion at the recent RFC. It's an open issue and not something that can be pinned down by a handfull of editors for the whole community. Maybe at an AFD you'll make this point and most people will agree with you. Maybe at an AFD you'll make the same point and people will shoot you down. To help pin it down I would welcome a second RFC on this exact question. I might prefer waiting until after the holidays though. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooter, our job is not to make this page reflect the perceived points of consensus at a single discussion (e.g., an RFC whose main effect was to demonstrate to the community that it was past time to ban Gavin). Our job is to put things on this page that reflect our best understanding of the community's actual views, or at least not to directly contradict what we think those views are on the flimsy basis that a single discussion didn't happen to adequate address it.

In short, it doesn't much matter what last August's effort to deal with Gavin's disruption did or didn't say: it matters what the community currently thinks. Avoid getting hung up on the RFC; it's just not that important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The RFC was an effort in good faith to establish a notability guideline on lists. Yes, some of that involved trying to placate a disruptive editor who eventually went on to be banned. But we can't undermine the importance of that discussion in establishing a clear sense of community purpose when it comes to lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WID, While I don't disagree with your explanations above, I do want to challenge you to be precise when you say Made Up or Make Up. Making something up, whatever it is needs a precise set of criteria so that one can determine When something is made up and when it is not made up. Whatever made up is, an addtional set of criteria needs to be spelled out as to When it is OK to make up something. Indeed editors have great leeway in the organization of articles and lists as we don't legislate specific, precise formats and organizational schemes. But the phrase Made Up seems almost deroggatory in light of WP:V. So as we more forward with more precise guidelines re lists, please be precise when you say Make Up. What does that really mean? --Mike Cline (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I share your interest in precise definitions, but I'm not convinced that it's possible. I think editors will have to use their best judgment and their knowledge of the subject matter when choosing the list selection criteria.

This certainly means avoiding idiotic criteria ("This US President didn't eat eggs, so he wasn't a 'real' US president and should be excluded from the 'List of US Presidents'"), but sometimes arbitrary limits are necessary. There's no particular reason why "appeared in five movies during this decade" is a better criteria than "appeared in four" or "appeared in six", but sometimes you really do have to draw a line somewhere to prevent an indiscriminate list that includes every person who appeared for even one second in the background of any film. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As long as we have conflicting policy and divided membership on when and whetehr a spinout is appropriate we will never be able to have some bright-line test like if a subject isn't notable, it cannot have an article, period. As long as WP:IAR exists there will always be exceptions.

I still think there may be some middle ground that both sides can live with, but with this fundamental divide, both sides are going to have to give something though or else we risk poisoning the well of contributors if one side feels like they did not have at least some kind of olive branch extended to them.陣内_Jinnai 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For now... the best compromise is to punt. Really. The best practice around spinouts has been in the air for a long time and it's a bigger issue than lists. We shouldn't let this ambiguity stop us from recording what we do know about lists... that they follow the same rules of notability as articles more or less. What we don't know is how often you can get away with spinning out a new list or article without much third-party sourcing... which is why it proves to be a contentious issue at AFDs. (But I see most non-notable spinouts deleted... in my personal experience.) Shooterwalker (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

True for SAAs they usually do get deleted or merged, but SALs, unless they violate WP:NOT, WP:V or another core policy are usually kept and not merged if the parent article is already too long. Not always, but most of the time.陣内_Jinnai 14:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

time traveller

A issue has arrisen (again) about the notability of The Circus (film) time traveller story. The basic gist is that vIt was considerd notable a tthe time so its still notable Vs It has had no lasting impact so its a one off event. Opinion please. I will cross post this with event as its equaly applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See policy at WP:DUE. WP:N doesn't come into this. As a sidebar remark, the speculation sounds pretty silly to anyone with an understanding of how cellphone systems (or radio systems with repeaters) work. However, level of silliness is irrelevant in establishing whether or not the item has sufficient weight to justify mention under the article topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?

Recently an AfD discussion for a restaurant was closed as no consensus (thus defaulting to Keep), where the argument for deletion was the lack of notability, which was countered by pointing out significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Said coverage consisted of run-of-the-mill restaurant reviews.

Now, if restaurant reviews in periodicals are sufficient to confer notability on the restaurants reviewed, then in most major cities virtually all restaurants are notable, which does not make sense.

The closing admin of the AfD discussion suggested starting a thread on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources whether restaurant reviews should be considered reliable sources. In my opinion, however, the issue is more whether a standard restaurant review counts as significant coverage.  --Lambiam 08:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's a reliably published nontrivial work about the subject. This question seems almost as fatuous as asking whether published biographies count as nontrivial coverage of their subjects. The only way I can interpret your question is "I don't think we should have articles about most restaurants in most major cities, but the notability guideline says we should, so how can we pretend the guideline doesn't really say what it really says?" If you think restaurants should be the subject of a guideline that mandates some stricter level of significance, by all means propose a guideline to do so, but don't warp our existing general-purpose guidelines and policies out of recognition to cover this one special case. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Likely it depends on whether each review is local or nationwide. To a reviewer who lives in a town the size of Rugby, the local restaurants likely seem big and important. And, how neutral is each reviewer? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note on Anthony's last point... sources (in this case reviews) don't have to be neutral, We (Wikipedia editors) need to be neutral when reporting what the sources say. True neutrality means we do not exclude a review because we think the reviewer is non-neutral, we balance it with other reviews that give a different opinion. (We might exclude the source for undue weight, but that is a different matter). That said, I agree that purely local sources are not enough to establish notability. There is a huge difference between a review published by Zagat, or the New York Times, and a review written by the local small town newspaper. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's a difficult one. If we rule out reviews altogether then only a minuscule proportion of restaurants could ever be notable. If we accept any review as evidence of notability then we open the door to millions of stubs on local businesses (although that's not such a bad thing if the content is verifiable &c) because it's much easier for them to get indepth discussion by independent media than it is for, say, a local logistics business or a retirement home. And, of course, if a restaurant can't establish notability through an independent person reviewing its chief output, how else should they establish notability? We'd also have a problem where the Smalltown Local Newspaper has a weekly restaurant review, so anything with 2 seats and a menu will get a review sooner or later; but if in nextdoor Tinyburg the local newspaper doesn't have a weekly food-critic column, no restaurant in Tinyburg is notable. That seems unfair to me. bobrayner (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see why they would not count in the same way that reviews work for books (see WP:NBOOKS point 1). The question is still going to be if there are multiple reliable sources, and if those sources are comprehensive enough to write a suitable article. Some reviews will easily meet this need, while others may not. And restaurants in smaller towns will likely not have multiple independent reviews. A single source does not reach the level required for notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The more important the newspaper, the more likely it is that reviews, themselves, indicate notability. For WP to attempt to deny such would be silly. I suppose we could say "newspapers with circulations under 10,000 do not count" but any such system would mean no restaurants in Vermont (for example) could be notable - which is also undesireable as a result. In short, absent any reason to believe that too many restaurants are being found notable which are holes-in-the-wall, status quo seems reasonable. Collect (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Local reviews - regardless of the size of the newspaper - are not "independent" sources with respect to the restaurant (a local paper promoting a local establishment), and thus do no confer notability. So even if the NYTimes reviewed a Newark dive, that's still not enough to give the Newark place notability. On the other hand, if the NYTimes talked about a Los Angeles restaurant, that's a starting point. The same logic is used in sports as to why most high school athletics aren't notable despite their being local coverage. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The NY Times has no connection to the restaurants it reviews. It is absolutely "independent"? The Times is not promoting the restaurants it reviews... it's reviewing them for the benefit of its readership. And it has a very wide audience (with readers all over the world) ... The opinions of its food critics have an impact on a restaurant's reputation all over the world. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is geographically dependent. It is reviewing local restaurants for the purpose of its local population, compared to a group like Zagat's. Again, same logic why high school sports are not covered, even if the NYTimes is the source. Note this is not to diminish the use of such sources in an article already notable to expand upon it, but they aren't notable sources themselves --MASEM (t) 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is a Restaurant Review (critiques of the food, the ambiance, the service, etc) different from journalistic coverage of the restaurant from a business, travel or event standpoint? If it is, does the source of the review impact its influence on notability? I came to this question based on the exchange about re the NY Times. I live in a small town (30K), small county (100K) and small state (< 1M). Yet in my small town we have dozens of very nice restaurants (few if any, other than national chains, have WP articles). So I decided to do a little searching. The NY Times Travel Guide (online) listed with short reviews 17 of our restaurants. (A similar search of the LA Times online found coverage as well). Do those listings contribute to notability? The local newspaper (online) had articles back to 1995 on many of the restaurants, mostly relative to business issues, ownership, events etc. Does this coverage contribute to notability? Having spent a lot of time on airplanes in the last few years, does coverage in an airline magazine contribute to notability? I am not talking about advertisements but those short regional related articles where celebrity Bob talks about his favorite restaurants in village X or travel guru Betty touts Restaurant Y as the best place to get Fried Green Tomatoes in the Rockies. What about coverage in local and regional magazines, chamber of commerce publications and other local guides? How about the tiny dive that makes it on one of those Food TV shows? Does that contribute to notability? As someone said above, it’s all about demonstrating notability through multiple reliable sources. Clearly an independent restaurant review is a reliable source. Whether its local, regional, or national is less relevant than the context in which is written. That said, I suspect that if editors wanted to find multiple reliable sources on local restaurants beyond the simple review, it would not be difficult. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise several reviews over the years from Smalltown Gazette can be used to presume Joe's Diner in the middle of nowhere is notable.

The way to view it is that we're looking for notability as it applies to global knowledge; we're not expecting everyone to be interested in every topic to call it notable, but the fewer and fewer people with interest in a topic, the less likely it is to be notable. A single restaurant, like most anything that deals with individual people, starts with presumed non-notability, making the goal to show why more than the restaurant owners, employees, and local residents should consider it important to include in a reference work. Which is why if the review is coming from a non-local source, we're getting somewhere, but when its a local review, whether the Smalltown Gazette on Joe's Diner, or the NYTimes on Tavern on the Green, neither contribute to tell why more people should know about this. Reviews from travel guides and travel magazines - even if they are highlighting restaurants in an area, are at least trying to do that job. I can't tell you want the line between where a source goes from local to wider coverage, but clearly that is part of it. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Restaurant reviews in local publications do not establish notability. Reviews and features in non-local publications do. It's not the job of an encyclopedia to have (and maintain!) an article on every pizzeria or diner in every town in the world. --JN466 16:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding notability being established from reviews, I think is far from a binary question. A city can have 3 reliable sources that review every single non-Applebees type resturaunt that opens in the city but that means that every single non-Applebees in the city is inherently notable per WP:N. That feels right to me. If the review says, "Business X opened at location Y and the food was Z" (Z being a sentence or two) and nothing else, I don't see how that can establish notability. On the other end, if a city newspaper (non-national) review says, "Business X opened at location Y and have the best burger in the city", I think that reference can absolutely be used to establish notability. In the end, WP:N is very clear that reliable and independent sources establish notability and for there to be a guideline that defines how some sources should be removed from that statement can't rely on a judgment call, in my opinion. It seems to me that reliability is already highly interpretably with the introduction of blogs and compounging that with attempting to interpret which reviews are the creme of the crop or which sources can be used to establish notability (think of a NYT or local paper compared to ZAGAT), will just muddy the waters. In short, I feel that WP:NRESTURAUNT would have to be a metric that I'm not sure can be established. Muddy waters exemplified by how split this discussion is and how split the AfD was. I'm not saying that doing nothing is the best answer though. OlYeller^Talktome 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Here is my feeling regarding reviews of restaurants and notability, taken from several comments I made in AfD discussions. Restaurant reviews are opinion pieces, not stories; they are not checked for factual accuracy as would normal articles would be. While they do establish verifiability, they do not establish notability because every restaurant is reviewed in a local news outlet at some time or another. For a restaurant to be notable, you would need to show what makes it notable - how it impacts the community it is in, if there is something that is historical about the business or some other fact beyond its menu - reviews do not do that. Reviews only show the place is there, what it serves and whether the reviewer liked it or not. There are exceptions however, there are times when some reviews are important, there are cases where a major chef or company has opened a new concept location that failed miserably. Reviews commenting on this sort of thing are pertinent and establish notability; there are other situations that apply as well where a review would contribute to notability. The main argument I am making is that just because a restaurant has been reviewed does not automatically confer notability, even when the source is reliable.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is a good point... reviews are opinion pieces. Not all opinions are equal when it comes to notability... the fact that a well known and acknowledge "expert" has discussed something in his field of expertise is an indication that the something is notable. The fact that Joe Blow has discussed something is not. The food critic at ZAGAT is considered an expert on restaurants ... I would say that the food critic for the New York Times is also an acknowledged expert in that field. The food critic for the Bumfuck County Weekly Herald is probably not. So... rather than talking about the venue of publication, I think we should be looking at the author of the review. If the reviewer is a well known food critic... the review can establish that the restaurant is notable. If the reviewer is a not a well known food critic, the review can not establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's definitely logic to this approach; on one side, we have the sources themselves that can be considered sufficiently reliable (editorial control) and independent that regardless who is the reviewer, the work itself is considered reliable, at the opposite end you could have a very unreliable source but authored by a known expert in the field. Or, case in point, regardless of where Roger Ebert ended up, his movie reviews would be considered an excellent source of notability. So we're looking at the net sum of the reliability of the independent (read: non-local) sources, and of the reviewers themselves. That would provide a good layer that would prevent every local hole-in-the-wall being notable just because it was their turn to appear in the weekly foodie review of Smalltown Gazette. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This makes the most sense so far in my opinion (evaluating the reviewer as opposed to the source the review is published in). It's probably still a little gray but probably no more gray than any other notability guideline. OlYeller^Talktome 09:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• The idea that a NY Times review of a restaurant in New York does not qualify as independent coverage is completely mystifying to me. Should all local coverage by major newspapers be ignored when determining notability? john k (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In general, yes. Of course, we're talking about the difference between a review found in a regular weekly section reviewing local eateries, verses a expert reviwer that covers restaurants from around the world and just happens to do a local eatery. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • What is the basis in policy for this argument? Coverage of local political figures in major metropolitan newspapers doesn't count for notability, in this view? Why not? john k (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      • WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information; to maintain that, we have to consider wider aspects of topics than those that just have local importance, otherwise, with enough legwork, it can be easily shown that nearly every business, every street, and every person should be included. So, yes, local coverage of local politicians alone is not enough for an article. Note this doesn't prevent local sources from expanding an article more once you've shown a restaurant or the like to be notable, but they cannot be the only sources used in an article. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Again, what is the basis for this in policy? There is nothing in the policy that says anything like this, except your own dubious gloss on what an "independent" source is. john k (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Between WP:FIVE and WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• One of the discussants above wrote: "In the end, WP:N is very clear that reliable and independent sources establish notability". However, an essential ingredient is missing here, that of significance. As the nutshell box states it: 'Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources.' Events are covered all the time by multiple reliable and independent sources without being considered notable: "Overnight guest at Safari West killed when tree topples tent"; "Tree falls during storm, grandmother killed". Such routine kinds of events – however tragic and widely reported – are usually not notable. WP:EVENT asks for something more, like a significant lasting effect. In my opinion, likewise, routine restaurant reviews (like e.g. this one) are lacking in significance. Yes, it is verifiable that the restaurant existed at the time of review and served Peking Duck, but that is not encyclopedic information. It may be true that the ambiance is fine, but again, not something to record in Wikipedia. What about depth of coverage? Does the restaurant have some significant impact on the community? Did it contribute to a lasting culinary change? Those are the kind of things, if reported on in an article on a restaurant, that would make me agree that, indeed, it has been "noticed" to a significant degree.  --Lambiam 10:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The summary Lambiam made is pretty much dead on as to what I have been trying to convey. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Having several articles in several different newspapers that are entirely devoted to a particular restaurant seems like the very definition of notability to me. Is the argument here that a review by Philadelphia Inquirer restaurant critic Craig Laban in the Inquirer does not establish a restaurant's notability, but that a review in one of the books of reviews he puts out does count? Or does the latter not count either? In either case, why? It's one thing to say that restaurant reviews in tiny local newspapers shouldn't count, but the idea that major metropolitan newspapers don't confer notability on restaurants they review seems rather ridiculous. john k (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Addendum: I see that the notability essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill explicitly mentions "A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers" as a kind of article "not to create based on common sources only". And Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), a proposed Wikipedia guideline, has: "Local restaurants are naturally going to be reviewed and written about in local papers. There is a distinct difference between these trivial write ups and more substantial mentions by reliable sources apart from just being a review of the food and service." I further spotted a "failed proposal" Wikipedia:Notability (restaurants).  --Lambiam 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is quoting an essay meant to be more persuasive than making the same argument yourself? john k (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

    I was merely pointing out that the essence of what I am suggesting here had already been stated elsewhere. I don't think of the essay as presenting an argument, but rather as setting forth a criterion that can help to gauge the significance of coverage with respect to notability.  --Lambiam 23:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Related fairly recent discussion: WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 79#Restaurant Notability --Cybercobra (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would summarize the ideas discussed here as: The existence of Reviews may or may not indicate that a restaurant is notable. A lot depends on who wrote the review, and what is said in the review. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to agree with the statement that the mere fact that a restaurant has been reviewed in a periodical is not sufficient to confer notability. However, several of the discussants appear to feel that such reviews qualify as "significant coverage". Is your claim that your summary is what appears to emerge as the consensus?  --Lambiam 14:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a summary of what was said here, and what was said at the VP discussion. Call it an emerging consensus, not a final one. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view, reviews (food, service, ambiance, etc.) can be a significant contributor to notability for any given restaurant. It’s the context and content of the review that is most relevant. But more importantly, demonstrating notability for any given restaurant should rely on the right combination of any of the following types of coverage.

• Critical reviews, especially by mainstream media publications and/or noted critics
• Coverage of business, franchising, ownership, innovation, sustainability, et al. related issues in local, regional and national press, and/or national/regional restaurant related media—NRN, NRA, Fast Casual.com, QSR magazine, etc.
• Coverage of the restaurant as an event or destination venue in national, regional and local travel magazines, journals and guides.
• Coverage of the restaurant on national TV shows for ownership, cuisine, innovation, sustainability, as a destination venue, etc.
• Coverage of the restaurant related to celebrity use and ownership.

The presence of a given restaurant in a directory listing does not contribute to notability.

My two cents --Mike Cline (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to put limits on use of newspaper restaurant reviews, I think the places to put emphasis on are "reliable sources" and "independence" rather than "significant coverage." The New York Times, or the Philadelphia Inquirer, or Washingtonian magazine, are reliable sources - they are widely circulated periodicals that put a considerable amount of energy and resources into reviewing restaurants. Their critics are well-known figures, and such publications take pains to be independent of the restaurants reviewed. When such sources review a restaurant, that is a perfectly credible indicator of notability. On the other hand, the restaurant column in some tiny town's weekly newspaper is a lot more questionable as a reliable source. We also don't really know the extent to which they are independent of any given restaurant they review. I don't really have a problem with not counting reviews in tiny newspapers as conferring notability, just like we don't count yelp reviews. But when you have major publications publishing reviews, that seems like the very definition of notability. john k (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

John, then based on the above you would agree that this coverage [1], navigate to page 93 - Marcus Sammualson on Three Nordic Trailblazers would constitute significant coverage? (Two of the 3 restaurants do not have WP articles yet.) --Mike Cline (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I'm not familiar with that publication. Probably. john k (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The major problems with reviews are that they are not works that would receive the editorial oversight that a normal article that appears in a reliable publication would. Reviewers are not held to the same rigorous standards that reporters are, they do not worry about being correct or factual because they are espousing an opinion. The subjective nature the review makes reviews allot less reliable than an objective story or investigative report that has gone through a rigorous fact checking review by the editorial staff of the publication. The personality of the reviewer is also problematic: there are reviewers that are sometime famous for their biases, look at film critic Rex Reed who is a famous contrarian.

While a reviewer may be famous and/or published in a respected publication, they are often in the same department as the social, fashion and entertainment reporters and are overseen by the same editorial sub-group of the publication. These columnist are not held to the same journalistic standards as reporters such as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward by any stretch of the imagination. The social pages basically state look who was here at this time with who doing what! Reviews aren't much different: look what was served at what time to whom! It was good/bad!

In summary, I believe that restaurant reviews alone cannot and should not be used as a sole establishment of notability because of their fundamental flaws - regardless of their source. They can and should be used to bolster the notability and establish verifiability. Based on the size of this discussion, I believe a revival of the proposed restaurant notability guidelines might be in order. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, in any major city there will be tons and tons of restaurants that don't get any kind of review from the local newspaper. In Philadelphia, where I live, the pizza place around the corner from me, the Chinese take-out place I order from, and any number of other cheap, mostly take-out type places never get reviewed by anybody professional. The fact that most sit-down establishments get reviews and most take-out type places do not, is, in fact, where the line of notability falls. john k (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In my city, much smaller than Philly, the local papers will cover all local places. That's not a barrier as required. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with placing the bar higher for one class of companies or organizations than others. I have seen AFDs where only local coverage existed for some organization like a high school, a church, or a musical organization like the local symphony. The consensus in various AFDs has been that a local newspaper can be a reliable and independent source, and that repeated instances of significant coverage satisfied notability. Perhaps two routine, run of the mill articles in the Smallville Gazette: "Joe has opened a new restaurant on Main Street" along with Joe getting a little promotional article as a reward for running ads is insufficient, just as a couple of articles for a church noting the building was dedicated, a new pastor arrived, and they had a building expansion or new organ are insufficient. AFDs typically have not required geographically diverse coverage, from papers across the country, to establish notability. That would empower deletion of most articles about high schools, which usually only get regional or local coverage, and goes against the consensus of hundreds of AFDs. An organization like a restaurant stays in one city, while some organizations (musicians) travel and get similar reviews in similar cities in the various cities they visit. The same amount and kind of of articles about a restaurant in the town's newspaper should establish notability as well as the same amount and kind of coverage in different cities of a musical organization or sports team. Guidelines established by a tiny number of editors in a discussion like this may not represent the views that the wider community has demonstrated in hundreds of relevant AFDs treating not just restaurants but other organizations with only local and regional coverage, which have been found to be notable. Wikipedia guidelines should reflect the views of the wider community, and should describe what is already the practice. Edison (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So that suggests the bar should be raised for things like high schools, which have always been tenuously kept per similar arguments. If all you write about an article is a bunch of local restaurant reviews, that's not encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You have asserted that, and you can make your opinion bold, or all caps, but it is still one contributor's opinion. Some here disagree with you, and clearly there is no consensus that reviews do not support notability for restaurants. Reviews are often used to support notability of musical performers as well as of books. From WP:NBOOK"This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." In all such cases, they are "just the reviewer's opinion." I agree that a nationally known and respected reviewer counts for more than someone at the local shopper's weekly. I support making a severe selection among the restaurants in a town. Omaha has 6 restaurant articles out of about 200 restaurants, and that may be about the right proportion (no opinion on whether it is the correct 6 restaurants). We do not need restaurant owners to create tens of thousands of vanispam articles about their restaurants, citing run of the mill local coverage. At the same time, every major city (London, Hong Kong, Chicago) has a dozen or two restaurants which are notable enough for an article. Perhaps they should be at least regionally known, such as appearing in published travel guides or having more than directory listings in magazines devoted to the city. I would not restrict restaurant articles to those few with Michelin 1 to 3 star ratings. I do not agree that a NY Times review of something in NY or New Jersey counts for nothing, but the same reviewer's opinion of a restaurant at the other end of the country is more important. Edison (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And musical performers and books and movies have much geographically significant impact than someone's hole-in-the-wall diner, and thus don't have the same issue. The fact that anyone - with funding - can open a restaurant, makes the simple act of a restaurant existing and being discussed at the local level an action that is non-notable for WP's include - just as we handle individuals themselves, garage bands, and companies run from offices-at-home. That's why the consensus here appears that local reviews are not sufficient for notability, but certainly regional, or wider, coverage that includes such reviews are useful. Remember, we still want "significant coverage in multiple sources". Reviews alone are not sufficient to develop an encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

break

Notability isn't some attribute etched in and defined by the cosmos, it Wikipedia's current best shot at a way to decide if an article is worth the cost/benefit ratio and suitability for publishing in a worldwide enclyclopedia that needs to limit itself to millions (vs 10's of millions) of articles. For the types of subjects that Wikipedia cut it;s teeth on, something along the lines of WP:GNG did the trick, although it has its limitations. But once one runs into areas where COI influences are significant, it starts to not be enough, and specialized guidelines arise where there are lots of articles involved. IMHO, these help address the incompleteness of wp:not/wp:gng. But there are other categories where COI influences are significant, but which are too narrow to have specialized guidelines. Until we get through the years it would take for a more complete wp:not, I think that we need to acknowledge the above and choose the stricter side of the gray area for restaurants and other commercial entities where writing the article could entail a more substantial COI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One significant difference between high schools and restaurants is that high schools are relatively stable institutions of learning that stay in communities for many decades or longer. They are usually governmental or non-profit, and are a deep and sustaining part of the social fabric of a community. Restaurants are commercial ventures that come and go, and accordingly, a Wikipedia article on a restaurant is at risk of being reduced to a promotional or marketing tool unless we watch these articles closely. As for restaurant reviews, they vary so much in quality that I find it hard to generalize about them. Some reviews are more "significant" than others. I am inclined to place higher value on a review that is lengthy and thoughtful, rather than one that is brief and pro-forma. I place much higher value on a review from a publication in another city or state/province, or a publication with national or international circulation, than a local paper. Even among local papers, I rate paid subscription dailies higher than free weeklies. I place much higher value on a review that asserts something unusual or distinctive about a restaurant and its cuisine. I place much higher value on a review by a paid journalist whose job it is to write reviews, as opposed to reviews submitted by the general public. A restaurant that has eight low quality reviews is not notable, in my view. Perhaps one with three excellent reviews is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, in many areas, it amuses some reviewers to scout some tiny restaurant in an outlying area and write them up. This probably shouldn't make "Joe's Pizza" notable for the city, but would have to be written off as a "benevolence" or "caprice" or something of the reporter. In the rural areas I watch, there are no notable restaurants despite local newspaper reviews. This sort of makes sense. It's not up to us to publicize these poor guys. I feel sorry for them. It's a tough business. But let them get their own publicity. Student7 (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We need a draft of a 2 or three sentence guide which would screen out the neighborhood grill, known to hundreds of people, which has an article in the local paper noting that "Joe opened a restaurant," a courtesy run of the mill review i =n the local paper which notes "Joe makes good chili," a third local ref that "Joe celebrated 25 years." Some test cases may help to clarify what is needed. The guide should not screen out a restaurant familiar to millions of people throughout a nation or several state (US) region, which is written up in the guidebooks about a city. There is apparently no article for the Rendezvous restaurant in Memphis, TN, but it is an example of one which should satisfy notability, with extensive coverage in books: [2], and countless more book, magazine and newspaper articles going beyond the run of the mill restaurant articles I outlined above. Not all notable restaurants will be located in major cities, and travel writers make their living telling folks in New York City about great dining in small towns in Connecticut or Vermont. I would not discount such coverage as blythely as some above recommend. If we discount NY papers writing about local restaurants, and their writing about "some tiny restaurant in an outlying area," and articles about restaurants opening, closing, changing hands then an impossibly high bar may be set for that class of business, compared to articles about hamlets (population 6), anyone who played a minute or more of a professional sport, every tiny commissioned vessel of every navy in history, and everyone who served 2 months in a state legislature such as Ambrose Abbott, which often lack the "multiple articles with significant coverage." The Rendezvous has numerous instances of significant coverage in books and article, and should be a shoo-in. An example of a less famous restaurant which would benefit in coverage from the nearby big city paper would be much newer "Prairie Grass Café" in Northbrook Illinois. I would discount coverage in the Northbrook and other nearby smalltown papers, as seen at Google News Archive, but would count multiple articles in the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times. I viewed these article (pay per view, unfortunately) via my library and found significant coverage, beyond a directory listing or run of the mill coverage, such as features on their special offerings in the major paper news sections. In addition, I found "Nation's Restaurant News" with a long article not just reviewing the taste of the food and the ambience and service, but discussing the background of the chefs and backers. I do not see that the Chicago papers count for nothing in articles about a restaurant 25 miles away, while an article in a lesser know paper in St. Paul Minnesota (400 miles away) would count for something. A random neighborhood restaurant does not get this kind of coverage. Edison (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can make a statement that when topics become more and more local (not just restaurants, but businesses, politicians, sports figures, bands, and several others) that local sources are generally not sufficient for showing notability though are valid for further verification. Instead, we are looking to sources that cover things more regionally, or we look to the reliability of the author of the work that is claimed to provide the coverage. We also need to remember that notability seeks significant coverage. A 1-paragraph review in any work is not sufficient even if it is at a national level. A single large review at the national level is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this has come up before, but, why are we even considering restaurants that are not evaluated 4 or 5 stars out of 5 by a reliable guide. Why are we even considering a restaurant based on some reviewer(s) "kind of liking it." Yes, it's affordable and the 4 & 5 star ones aren't, but why is affordability a notability factor? Student7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ratings should not be used to exclude restaurants. I would agree that from guides like Zagats or Michelin that the top rated restaurants are likely to be included (as it is a merit that generally gains attention), but just because a restaurant that gets 1 out of 4 stars doesn't make it non-notable. Yes, the lower a review a restaurant gets, the less likely it can be found notable, but it's not a rule we can usehere. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I would agree that vast majority of notable restaurants will be those that have good reviews and lots of stars in the guides... but there is the possibility for a spectacularly abysmal restaurant to become notable (say for making a whole lot of people sick). Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedias is not a "Consumers' Directory of High Quality Establishments." We have articles on notable things, not admirable things. Biographies are not limited to those of people who led exemplary noble, inspiring and saintlike lives. Rogues, traitors, charlatans, criminals and scoundrels abound. Wretchedly untalented musicians who sell lots of records get articles. Lying, crooked politicians get articles, even if they lose elections spectacularly. Horrible movies which got bad reviews have articles, even if they were enormous money losers. An infamous restaurant whose proprietor discriminated against minorities, served wretched disgusting and tainted food, was cited as having the dirtiest kitchen in New York, or which used slave labor in the kitchen could well have multiple reliable and independent sources writing multiple instances of significant coverage about it, satisfying WP:N. A Michelin rated restaurant should doubtless have an article. So should many restaurants which have coverage satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• My two cents is that a non-trivial review in an independent, reliable source, counts for WP:N no matter how "local" the source. There is no policy or guideline reason to believe otherwise. Please recall WP:PAPER. If we can write a well sourced, neutral article on a subject, we in general should. WP:N isn't there to measure actual notability (i.e. dictionary-definition notability), it is there to make sure we only write articles on subject we can write good articles on. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the notion expressed by Student7 that restaurants in very small towns are unlikely to be notable. I wrote an article Whoa Nellie Deli about a notable restaurant in an isolated town of 250 people. In fairness, lots of tourists pass through that town, Lee Vining, California. To establish notability, I used quotations from reviews from seven notable newspapers and magazines, all published hundreds or thousands of miles away. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa Nellie - a marvelous example - nicely done!--Mike Cline (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a great example of what the above discussion says we should want from these articles - coverage outside the local area the restaurant is located. I doubt most restaurants can be given a similar writeup - this is the exception, and not the norm. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Here's some background work for those editors who might want to expand restaurant coverage in WP Notable Restaurants needing articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nellie Deli a classic. Should the article be mentioned "somewhere" (essay, at worst) for editors edification? The footnotes almost a who's who of (Western US) print journalism. Exactly what we are trying to encourage for any article on the topic of "notability." Student7 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• "Significant coverage" is primarily an issue of how many words are in the source, not how many readers subscribe to the source.
• The size of the town isn't a factor in determining the notability of the restaurant. Famous restaurants are not infrequently located in small towns. Auberge de l'Ill (anyone know why we still have a redlink for this Michelin 3-star restaurant?) is located in Illhaeusern, population 718. What matters is the size of the coverage. Coverage in The Mulberry Advance is not a strong indication of notability (of anything, really, but especially of a business that's next door to the newspaper office): Something 'noticed' in that tiny paper is 'noticed' by one out of every 55.1 million people on the planet, assuming that every single subscriber read the issue cover-to-cover. By contrast, coverage in a dozen large newspapers all around the world, across ten or more years, is an extremely strong indication of notability.
  This guideline used to have a line in it that said "the notability of a subject is judged by the world at large". Small-town media about their own neighborhoods is not "the world at large". It is better described as "the world at small". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that the reviews should appear in either national media or major news sources from other cities. In other words, the restaurant's nobility should extend beyond its immediate locale.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The only rule of thumb ought to be "might a reader someday find this information of some utility" (just as with any other notability issue). This has nothing to do with "immediate locale" at all. In general, papers such as the NYT, which offer more than one review should have greater weight than the Podunk Weekly Review. Exceedingly few papers can afford to have reviewers eat out in far-off places, making that idea unworkable - when they list "best hamburgers in the US" the writers tend to look up what other reviewers have said in the past, or places thay just happened to visit on their own. Again - I fear the "notability" monster is not the real ideal for an encyclopedia. I find "reasonable expectation of utility" to be a far better measure. Collect (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree... Utility is not a good way to judge Notability. After all, who defines whether having an article on something is "useful" or not? How do they reach such a judgment? It's purely subjective. I might think having an article on every Pokemon card is "useful", another editor might disagree and think it isn't useful at all. (I will also note the only place the concept of utility is alluded to in the guideline is in relation to preserving information that appears in articles that are about to be deleted... ie not notable.) Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns about utility. However there were two issues at hand, and I'm not sure the other was addressed by anyone...

So here's the thing... I can't imagine why an article in the Toronto Star about a restaurant in Ottawa is somehow magically more important than an article in the Toronto Star about a restaurant in Toronto, yet the criterion above seems to suggest it would be. This is even more worrying worrying considering that so many articles are syndicated and lots more written by stringers or pulled off the wire.

So count me out on that razor. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is why I think who wrote the review is more important than where it appeared. The opinion of a well known food critic is notable, no matter where that opinion is published. The opinion of some unknown foodie is not notable, no matter where that opinion is published. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're going here. It does seem like this is transitive notability, but in lieu of other suggestions it seems workable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, what I don't like about your statement above is the implication that "the reviews"—that is, all of them—should be from out of the area. I'm usually satisfied if we can find one substantial source (more than a one-paragraph mention) from outside the immediate locale.

Blueboar, I think that your idea is a good one, but might be complex to implement. Some "known foodies" are seriously indiscriminate (e.g., wine ratings, which include thousands of products, all rated by "experts"). If you've got ideas about how to address this, then let me suggest that you have a go at expanding WP:CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If I was a newbie reading this discussion and I went to WP:CORP I would be confused as to what the issue is. WP:CORP does not preclude the use of local sources (ie. local reviews for a restaurant) but is fairly explicit with this language The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. After reading that I would conclude that having six dynamite local reviews on a specific restaurant wouldn't confer notability, but having two average local reviews and a dynamite regional or national review would. In other words, local reviews can help contribute to notability, but significant coverage demands some regional, national or global coverage to ensure notability. Where we step on our toes is when we try and equate local with a specific location (ie. New York Times with New York) when in fact the New York Times is a worst a national publication and at best an international publication. The Bozeman Chronicle is a local rag covering Gallatin County, Montana. It is a local source. The Boston Globe is at least a regional source as are many big city rags. Local reviews don't confer notability, while regional and international coverage does regardless of where that rag is published. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In support of Blueboar's "utility" argument above, this is what almanac's are for - they are "useful." I think we had decided that we are NOT an almanac. (Somehow, I thought I could give a pointer to this, but couldn't find one). Student7 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are partially an almanac, incorporating elements of it along with elements of a encyclopedia. But that likely covered "useful" data that is also "reference" data, which would include things like sports teams' records, national census results, and so on. We don't omit useful information, only information which is only found to be claimed "useful" but doesn't fit the larger educational purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything is useful to somebody... utility is not a good measure for inclusion or exclusion. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I meant: we include stuff because its encyclopedic - if it happens to be useful, hey , great, but that's not the bar we've set. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines for Locations?

I was wondering if there is a set of notability guidelines for locations? (As in towns, counties, cities, etc.) I was considering nominate this page for deletion, seeing as it doesn't seem notable in the slightest, but then I was unable to find any notability critera for communities and towns. Do towns simply have to exist to be notable enough for Wikipedia, or am I right to want to nominate it as an AfD? Epass (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is generally no notability guideline for towns or the like (there have been attempts), and they are expected to meet normal notability guidelines. But as such, per WP:OUTCOMES, as long as the location is recognized by government entities, consensus has it as these places are presumed notable and thus are rarely deleted. While you'd be free to nominate it at AFD, you can expect it to be kept unless you present an incredibly stellar counter-argument to that effect. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Epass - I don't mean to pick on your thinking, but something you said in your question is instructive. I was considering nominate this page for deletion, seeing as it doesn't seem notable in the slightest... We don't evaluate notability of WP article topic based on seems or feelings but on whether or not the topic has recieved significant coverage by reliable sources. In the case of geographic locations, the consensus is that government sources re a location are reliable and such coverage is signficant, and that almost invariably, any populated place that has been in existance for many years has been mentioned signficantly in a reliable source in the past. Thus geographic locations are presumed to be notable and as Masem rightly says above, results in AfD prove this out. The reason there is no explicit guideline re geographic location notability other than Wikipedia:Notability (geography) is that answering the question as to where you draw the line would be impossible to answer. So, back to my original thought. Notability of WP article topics is based on coverage in reliable sources, not feelings. I am glad you asked the question. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for addressing my question, although I still believe that not every small town is notable, just as there is not a page for every single person in the world, as not every person is notable by Wikipedia's standards. But I understand that it would be, as was pointed out, very difficult to draw the line. In response to Mike Cline's comments, I would like to elaborate on why I used the word "seem". I had just looked into the article briefly before I realized that there was no notability guidelines for locations, as far as I could find. So I posted this question. If I were to procede and nominate the article for deletion, I would have definitely looked further into the notability of the town prior to doing so, to make sure I had not missed anything. I never planned on nominating it for deletion based on seems or feelings as you put it; the seems and feelings just attracted me to investigate the matter further. Epass (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning non-notables from reality show

As is typical, a bunch of folks were picked for a reality show who were WP:NN. I won't go into detail as to why they were selected. I presume readers are familiar with the genre. For this particular show (and maybe all the others, what do I know?) the people were lovingly documented as to personality and activities, and their interactions with each other in exquisite painful detail. All carefully referenced of course!

IMO, the show is junk. ("Little" bias there  :) It is, however, on tv. Whaddya gonna do? What I did was to delete all the non-notables, which was every single person mentioned in the article! Left the footnotes (for all the good that did!  :) If you will be quiet for a minute, you may hear the screams! Anyway, I am beset for all of this. No surprise really. The only question was "how long would it take?" Answer: About ten minutes!  :)

One show. Filmed over a few days. Shown over a season. Single event for individuals who did NOT go on to any notability. Any help here? Student7 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We do all this for the same reason we mention the parents, children or spouses of a BLP article subject, the influences upon a writer or artist, and so forth: Because it's explanatory and relevant to the article. Removing information on the entire cast of a TV show makes no sense, as does the notion that every person mentioned in an article on an notable subject has to themselves be notable. Encyclopedic material on a given subject is naturally going to include mention of the people directly related to that subject, which we could not do if they each had to be notable. That is one of the obvious roles of an encyclopedia, and not just almanacs or entertainment periodicals. Notability is a guideline to determine whether a person or subject deserves their own article, not whether he or she is mentionable in someone else's. To argue that the only people that can be mentioned in articles are those that are noteworthy themselves, that to this end, we should even exclude the names of authors of scientific papers who don't qualify for articles themselves is just inane. Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:N doesn't effect content, but WP:UNDUE does. If the details of the contestants far exceed the details of the show, its likely a problem but that's not a notability issue. However, as they are living persons, details ahve to meet WP:BLP requirements too. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Student 7 didn't mention UNDUE. He'she is arguing notability, which is why he/she brought the discussion here (Sorry, Student, I don't know your gender yet--please clarify.) If his recent edit is an indication, he's referring to The Real World: Denver, whose cast, like those of many reality shows, are selected from the non-entertainment, or "civilian" population, and filmed over the course of three or four months (not "a few days" as Student says). Why Student singles out this one particular season of the show (the 18th of 25 seasons), I have no idea, but the information is does not represent undue weight. It is precisely because the content of the show is centered on the cast members' lives and the conflict generated by their interactions with each other, that detailing aspects of their lives both prior to and during their time on the show, including where they're from, their personal/religious/political beliefs, relationship status, personality/character, etc., lends itself in a relevant manner to those interactions and their place in the cast. Since the time I discovered the Real World articles, I have worked to bring them in line with BLP guidelines, making sure that every bit of material in them is sourced, and every opinion in them is properly attributed. This is particularly the case beginning with the Syndey season, when I started doing this in depth, through the most recent season. No aspect of Notability or BLP is violated, as far as I can see. Nightscream (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Short bios that are sourced as there are in that article doesn't seem like any problem at all. The description sounded like we're talking 2-3 paras for each person, but what's there seems appropriate, so there's no UNDUE. And certainly no WP:N issue. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that once Wikipedia documents reality shows featuring nonentities, we have transcended the line between an encyclopedia and a tv guide/People magazine. The concept of "encyclopedia" kind of goes into the garbage at that point, doesn't it? We are simply slavishly following the media which chronicles anything. (What, no "toilet cams"? Maybe the Supreme Court can address that "Freedom of Speech/public need to know" thing!). Student7 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the reality show in question. Some are notable... others are not. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Slavishly following our sources" is exactly what we're here to do. We're here to document what reliable sources find notable, and we know if they find something notable by virtue of whether such sources note it extensively. We're not here to express our own viewpoints on the subjects, but to cover them in a totally dispassionate manner, basing the amount of coverage we give them upon the amount that those sources do. Failing to follow the sources' lead is to give an inappropriately large or small amount of weight to the subject. Our own like or dislike of the subject in question matters not one bit.

As far as the specific bit you're talking about, there's a massive difference between a reality show and a toilet cam. The people on the reality show well knew what they were signing up for and that it was all going to be filmed and distributed to the public. That's a great deal different than filming a person secretly and when they reasonably believe they're in private. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that WP is more than just an encyclopedia, as we incorporate elements of other types of works. As Seraphimblade rightly indicates, we follow the sources, and as most reality TV is documented in mainstream media, we give it the appropriate weight there. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream?

Twenty-somethings are selected for photogenic looks, age, singleness, personality, extroversion, and non-addiction to hard drugs. They are also deliberately selected for poor common sense, poor judgment, incapability to form relationships (otherwise they couldn't take off for "several months" suddenly), tolerance for alcohol, tolerance for pot, lack of ambition (a decent job would prevent most people from doing this), and low moral values. There is no danger, with these criteria that these people will ever be "notable." They are carefully selected so when the viewing audience finishes the season, they can (truly) say that "Bryson may have looks, sex appeal, etc. but I am not the failure in life that he is!" Nor will they most likely become notorious either.

These are shows featuring people who are the anti-thesis of people we try to document as "notable" in Wikipedia. They are shows to sell widgets, not because they are producing anything "notable."

So if the FCC approves, and the people know what they are signing up for, we may be able to look forward to articles on "toilet cams" in Wikipedia? Student7 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between the notability of the show (which is evident from the sources), and the non-notability of the people on the show. The latter means they don't get their own articles, but can be discussed in the context of the show. But the fact that the show itself is notable and discussed in reliable press sources means it does get an article. We are not making judgements on the people that sign up for the show, only reporting about the show, and knowing who is on it is a necessary function. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your complaints seem to be more about this genre and your aesthetic reactions to it and the examples at hand from it. That's a question of personal taste, but is not a matter of Wikipedia policy. Television shows are automatically notable, especially long-running ones, so naturally, they are going to be detailed in a general knowledge encyclopedia. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is "automatically notable". Notability on Wikipedia absolutely requires the existence of third-party sources. If someone (how, I don't know) manages to make a television show that is never described in a third-party source, then that television show is not notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That detail doesn't necessarily extend to the cast. They could just as well talk about the detail of the setting, the crew, the props, etc. without ever mentioning anything much about the cast.陣内_Jinnai 16:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited... so, in order to have an article on a specific participant of a reality show, we would need to establish that the participant is notable (by finding reliable sources that discuss the participant). This is not an onerous policy provision... as reality show participants tend to be major topics of discussion in the mainstream media, it is highly likely that there will be lots and lots of reliable sources that will support notability. While we may not like the fact that "Snooky" is notable... the sources show that she is. And, going the other way... given how much the media discusses reality shows and their participants, it would be significant to not find sources on a particular participant. It would tell us that the participant really isn't notable.

Now, if we are talking about mentioning the participants within the article about the show, we have a different standard. We don't have to show that the participant is individually notable... as long as we can verify his or her participation we can mention it. How much detail we give is determined by WP:UNDUE.

That leaves the question of whether we can have a separate list article about the cast. That is determined by whether there are sources that discuss the cast as a group (ie whether the cast, as a topic distinct from the show and as a topic distinct from the individual members of the cast is discussed by reliable sources). Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability for sex-related subjects

I'd like to start a discussion about what constitutes notability in terms of various sex-related subjects (including potentially offensive images). Any thoughts, anyone?  TyrS  chatties  22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is thataway. In regards to notability, it would be what are appropriate reliable sources for those subjects. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'm very familiar with WP:NOTCENSORED; this would be more about notability, neutrality, and quality. E.g. the relaying of 'how-to' type advice in articles relating to particular sexual practices.  TyrS  chatties  00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Notability" on Wikipedia means (exactly) "does this subject get its own article all to itself?" Once you have decided that the subject (e.g., a sexual practice) qualifies for an article all to itself, you're 100% finished with this guideline.

Whether or not a given piece of information about the subject (e.g., how-to advice) should be included in a given article (e.g., about a notable sexual practice) is strictly Somebody Else's Problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And more specifically WP:NOTHOWTO. It may be necessary to describe, say, the positioning of a certain positioning, but we don't tell people how to actually make that work. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... from a purely WP:Notability stand point, if the topic (even a sex-related topic) is discussed by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then we can have an article about it. What we say in that article is governed by other policies and guidelines... such as WP:NOTHOWTO. Blueboar (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Forking

NickPenguin brought up a good point above about forking implying notability for the new article. This is probably not automatic today. It is rather incumbent upon us editors to ensure that subsections are sufficiently notable so they might be later forked. Where there is good article structure this should be possible. Student7 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not appropriate. Yes, to some extent, we should use sources to help guide how an article should be developed, but that still is, end of the day, editorial decisions on how best to organize content to make things clear to the reader. For most articles which fall into established fields, we have a number of required sections, none which would be "notable" on their own but certainly can be sourced. Additional sections outside of these may be needed based on the material available, and that's where we use sources to determine that, but notability cannot be a factor here. (This is more than just "notability does not affect article content", this is about writing effective articles. And yes, eventually such sections may be forked for size issues but that does not require the section to be notable to do that. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of topics have non-notable sub-topics (sub-topics that are worth mentioning in the context of the main, notable, topic, but are not notable on their own)... I strongly believe that for a section to be forked, the sub-topic (ie the topic of the new article) has to be notable on its own. If the sub-topic is not notable on its own, it should remain part of the parent article and not be forked. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

But if you have 200 k of content - all appropriate per all other content policies but simply not-notable on its own - we need to fork something to comply with SIZE. (And lets assume that trimming and all other actions suggested by SPINOUT have been tried). --MASEM (t) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can have it both ways. If we accept that content must be forked due to size restrictions, we cannot also claim that every forked article must be about an independently notable subject. There will be at least one case where the first bit is true and the last bit is not. This doesn't weaken our standards for quality content, it just takes a more realistic view about what a page represents and how it plays into giving adequate coverage on a subject. An article is supposed to be an overview of the subject, and subpages are used to further expand on specific ideas within a main article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is why it is important to remember that notability is a quality assigned to a "topic", not the article itself; we evaluate an article based what it's topic is and if that topic is notable. When content is forked, the new article may or may not share the same topic as it likely depends on exactly what was forked off. In general , if we take the general approach that summary style uses(and which NP mentions), in which the details of a topic that are less critical to general understanding and more useful for specific understanding, it is likely that the new article is not creating a new topic. We still need to avoid NOR and NPOV and other aspects when forking, and thus that will guide when forking is appropriate in the first place. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nick, I think we can "have it both ways":

• We must permit List of diseases to be split for SIZE reasons, without making Blueboar explain why List of diseases (Y) is an independently notable topic, as if the first letter in the name of diseases were a subject of serious scholarly study.
• We must also not accept other kinds of splits that result in wholly and obviously non-notable topics, without making Masem pretend that it's okay to split off a section about a company that was previously merged into the article because the company is not notable (e.g., Joe's Hamburger Shack merged into Smallville, NW). In that situation—if Smallville is getting too large—the best solution may be to split off something else (e.g., "History of Smallville"), or to reduce or even remove the information about the non-notable business, rather than to re-create "Joe's Hamburger Shack". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a right way and a wrong way to split. I never said it would be ok to do the example as described because that's way too mundane of a split. In general (and not 100% always right), if I have to split article X, I am going to split it out as "Y of X" where Y was a level 2 section name under X. In the example, "History of Smallville" or "Commerce of Smallville" would be likely splits. But again, this ignores the question of any notability issues; the split is appropriate because its needed. Just surpassing size does not give editors the ability to start throwing non-notable articles around claiming that spinoffs are needed; they should be as high-level as possible and, of course, the more that sources talk about the spinout concept at large, the better the justification. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that splitting a long list like List of diseases by alphabet is acceptable, as doing so does not change the topic (however, I do think each of the alphabetical lists should repeat the lede from the parent article, and thus re-establish the notability of List of diseases)... but could we say the same about splitting that article by country? I think there would be a subtle topic shift if we created something like List of diseases (Kenya). And List of diseases (by sexual orientation) is definitely a different topic.

I understand that a split may be needed... A list of Xs can often be split off from the article about Xs and maintain the same topic (I think both articles should establish that Xs are notable) ... but sometimes splitting creates a new topic. And that new topic does need to be notable. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's more specific to lists. But key is that you're not change the topic by choosing how your cross-categorize, but instead you may introduce an unnecessary bias which we don't permit per WP:NPOV. Eg: a list of diseases by country could be seen to emphasize how some 3rd world countries have large numbers, while 1st world ones are not. Same argument on orientation. Hence, splitting of long lists need to be done by either a natural metric or one recognized in sources. Alphabetical splits are generally fair - that's more a natural way to split any type of list. Another example would be movies, where we have splits by country and by year (at the same time, eg List of American films of 2010) as both the nationality of a movie and the year it was produced are common factors used to classify films. (Of course, I'm absolutely certain that most by-country-by-year movie lists can be justified per the notability rules suggested for lists in general). But I still disappear that a spinout is necessarily a new topic. It can be an inappropriate biased view of a topic if done poorly, it could also be completely inane and indiscriminate "List of U.S. Presidents with blond hair". People have enough common sense to judge when such splits are unwarranted. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Masem, the issue is not specific to lists: AIDS is not exactly the same topic as AIDS in Africa; Cancer is not exactly the same topic as Childhood cancer.

I believe that many "mechanical" splits (e.g., by alphabet or year) do not create a new topic, and often do not even truly create a separate article (in any meaningful sense). I also believe that 90%+ of our editors are capable of figuring out how to handle these situations.

Is there anything we need to accomplish here? Do we have any real problems in live articles with this issue? Is there something that really needs to be said, or something in this guideline that is actually wrong, or can we leave it to editorial judgment and IAR for now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to effect changes now (particularly with lists). The RFC gave us a result to put into place that only covers a very basic part, and any further advice (here or SAL or SPINOUT) needs more discussion, possibly another RFC. However, it is very fair to try to determine what the core issue(s) are here. Is it notability or something else. So consider this not anything to block anyone from taking actions, but simply exploratory discussion based on the original question asked ("Should sections of an article be notable to allow spinouts?")

But as to the examples, I would actually argue that "AIDS in Africa"'s topic is "AIDS". In a printed work or if there was no SIZE issue, I would expect there to be a section "AIDS in Africa" likely as part of a large section "AIDS across the world" (or something better, but you get the idea). Of course, there's a lot of source treatment to AIDS in Africa that it is could also be a standalone topic, making it an ideal spinoff. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that AIDS in Africa is a notable sub-topic of AIDS... and as such is worthy of being a topic on its own. To see if your argument holds true, substitute Antarctica for Africa (a much less notable sub-topic... and possibly a non-notable sub-topic). I would argue that there must be sources that specifically discuss AIDS as it relates to Antarctica for us to say that "AIDS in Antarctica" is notable enough for an article. Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say AIDS in Africa is a subtopic of AIDS. It may be notable and I will say that if an article needs to be split per WP:SIZE or WP:SS, then going for those that are notable subtopics should come first. Thus AIDS in Africa comes before AIDS in Eqypt. However, after splitting off all the notable subtopics if there is still so much info in AIDS it needs another split, but nothing is notable, then other subtopics for AIDS will need to be created. IMO they are all still under the purview of AIDS, even topics like the Impact of AIDS would still be about AIDS.陣内_Jinnai 14:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) The guidelines do not provide for the concept of a sub-topic. There are topics that are notable, and topics that are not notable; there are (implicitly) narrow topics and broad topics. However, there are no sub-topics or parent topics or child topics or fractional topics or hierarchical topics: all topics are equal (and no topics are more equal than others).

Do you wish to introduce these concepts? (I don't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are sub-topics. Most exist as h2-level headings in articles, some are broken out to a spinoff article. This is actually well documented in Summary style and spinout advice.

This type of comment is the core of WP's notability problem. It is a very mechanical view of how humans classify information, when in reality human knowledge is extremely hierarchical. Notability should be used to make sure that we don't dissect human knowledge to such a fine detail that we become indiscriminate and foil our purpose being an encyclopedia. Notability is thus still good to make sure a irrelevant detail isn't given excessive coverage through its own article. But at the same time, there are subtopics of topics that are not irrelevant to WP's purposes but don't meet WP's notability guidelines and run afoul of size problems (the latter not an issue for printed works). That's the whole point of using forking and spinouts is to handle cases like that. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that sub-topics exist, and sometimes are forked off. The question is: When we fork off a sub-topic (due to size or other considerations), must that sub-topic be notable in its own right... I would think it must, otherwise we end up with the sub-topic inheriting the notability of the main topic. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See, I wouldn't call those "sub-topics". I'd call those "Help:Sections", and I do not require individual sections to meet any standard of notability at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the split and the concept to determine if it is inherited. It really depends if how we organize information on WP if that would normally be a standalone topic. For example: as we generally treat specifically individual people as their own individual topic, we can't apply inherited notability to a spouse of a notable person. On the other hand, "AIDS in Africa" doesn't classify normally as a topic, so it would still be a sub-topic and inheritance doesn't apply. Again we need to move away from this mechanical approach. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

But Notability isn't inherited... you seem to be saying that sometimes it is. Why doesn't "AIDS in Africa" does classify normally as a topic on its own? Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think we just discovered the case when notability is inherited. When content must be split out due to size restrictions, the new article is by default notable. After the fact, the content can be examined to determine if the split article is actually necessary, but these are other criteria. Only in these cases is notability inherited, and only in the sense that the new article gets a pass, and it is held against other criteria in lieu. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't result in inherited notability. It's more often a sign of editors that are paying too much attention to one aspect of a topic. If people are overfilling an article with an aspect of the topic that doesn't get covered in independent, third-party sources (a requirement of WP:V, not just WP:N, by the way), the solution is to reduce coverage of that aspect of the topic, not to create a second article that fails fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

With the arbitrary nature of SIZE, this statement is condradictory. If SIZE tomorrow was 25k, we'd be in big trouble by mechanical trust of notability. Because of size, we have to separate the idea that "article" and "topic" are synonymous. A topic can cover multiple articles, an article can cover multiple connected topics.

There is a feature, referred to above convos, as "viability" of a standalone article that should apply to all article types, prose, spinouts, lists, whatever. This viability is founded in WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, and other policies and ideals particularly indiscriminate nature, but not WP:N. That said, a means to make sure that a topic is appropriate is notability, which is fine. It's understanding that there are many possible articles under a topic due to SIZE, and how best to organize content within a large topic to provide appropriate coverage. It will be based on sources, but not notability. There's a huge difference between sourcing and notability here. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

But all articles must be based on material from independent, third-party sources, per WP:V (not WP:N alone). Material from primary sources may be included, certainly, but articles cannot be based on them. If a fork would result in an article being based on primary sources, it's an invalid fork, and, 99% of the time, is a sign of improper weighting of material.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There could very well be a case where a subarticle on a topic meets every criteria of WP:V but still does not meet the threshold of WP:N. The examples I listed earlier: musician discography, lists of works by an author, lists of television episodes, lists of computer software, lists of fictional characters, lists of awards given or received, all these kinds of lists could very well be verifiable but not notable independently of the parent subject. Is List of awards and nominations received by House (TV series) notable independently of House (TV series)? Has anyone written something where the subject is the awards House has received? I don't see anything in the cited sources to indicate this. It would seem to me that any article of this nature gets the notability pass because the notability is in some cases inherited. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

NickP, It seems to me that you are ignoring the notability guideline we just created. A list topic is notable if the topic has been discussed as a group or set. In the case of List of awards and nominations received by House (TV series), the list topic has indeed been discussed by reliable sources as a group or set. The most obvious in the article is the IMDB link to House awards. I suspect other listed sources address House awards in a similar manner. In my mind, this source makes the list topic House Awards notable according to the new guideline. Inheriting notability from the House article is not only unnecessary, but very difficult to spell out in a guideline. I am extremely confident that in the future editors will challenge the phrase discussed as a group by saying some topic wasn't discussed enough, but that battle remains for the future. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, bad example. How about many of the articles in Category:Lists of fictional characters, or articles like these? Lists of characters are generally split out and accepted even if they haven't been discussed as a group. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My take? 99% of them are WP:NOT#PLOT violations masquerading as content forks. They serve only as a vehicle to expand the plot discussion of the parent topic beyond reasonable bounds, and are actually an example of the kind of list that should be deleted.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with WhatamIdoing. Each article here is its own topic. It may be a derivative topic from another but it still must be a notable topic in its own right. To use the example of AIDs in Africa: this is easily a notable topic in its own right, although it is a subtopic of AIDS. Compare AIDS in Africa or AIDS in Washington, DC (both notable topics) with, say, AIDS in Perry County, Pennsylvania which is not a topic of much media or research coverage. We should not get into the habit of defining articles as parent or child articles, although it may be true structurally, because it only obfuscates the point that the notability guidelines apply to all articles, irregardless of their connection to other articles. ThemFromSpace 12:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If an article is huge, and its subsections are not clearly notable, I would suggest the proper course is to majorly prune the bloated parent article. If a list is excessively long, the normal logical break is alphabetically -- as "List A-R" and "List S-Z" are intrinsically of equal notability. Where the list is historical in some way, then using dates may be of utility for the break. Other lists (I think there is a huge one on people who might have a claim to the British throne which goes beyond any reasonable expectations of actually one of them becoming King or Queen) may have other clear ways of meeting "equal notability" for the split articles. Collect (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, with SIZE, what is determined to be "bloated" is completely arbitrary. Trimming should be done before splitting, but that will not always prevent the need to split. It is very simple if you see topics spanning multiple pages, while very difficult if you insist a topic must be confined to one article. No printed work would work along the latter philosophy. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is actually saying that we should never split or fork off sub-topics into their own articles... we are saying that when we split off sub-topics, we need to establish that they notable on their own. Notability is how we determine what should be forked and what should not be forked. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if you ignore WP:SIZE, there are still technical limitations to page space and some of the longer lists due reach that limit. Those should be split and in that case notability should not need to be re-established.

In addition, there is the summarization aspect. Wikipedia tries to service 2 types of individuals for comprehensive subjects like Japan: Those who want a brief overview and those who want more in-depth coverage. You can't always do that in 1 page, especially if you have a long list without ignoring the summarization aspect. And you can't just summarize everything on the subject in the lead either.陣内_Jinnai 17:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Headcount

I just performed a quick headcount.

• All articles and lists need third-party sources, even spin-outs:
  1. Student 7
  2. Blueboar
  3. WhatamIdoing
  4. Kww
  5. Themfromspace
  6. Shooterwalker
• Spin-outs don't need third-party sources if they are split off due to size:
  1. Masem
  2. NickPenguin
• In the middle:
  • Jinnai: spinout articles are usually deleted, but spinout lists are usually kept
  • Collect: spinout articles are usually deleted, but you can split a list in ways where both splits are basically notable (split alphabetically, chronologically, etc.)
  • Mike Cline: moot point... since most splits you would want to make are probably notable anyway.

There isn't quite a consensus for the "tight" position where everything should have third-party sources. We're unlikely to reach a consensus that any large article or lists can be split, because most people seem to think trimming is often the best practice. The only way this discussion is going to be resolved is if enough of us compromise and meet in the middle, around the position of Jinnai, Collect, or Mike Cline. It's also possible that those three could just accept the "tight" position if they believe it's not that different from what they already believe. But in all honesty... I think we should punt. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SW - nothing wrong with punting, but are we aiming for the sideline, a touchback, downing it at the one, or a fair catch? Where do we go from here? (FYI, I'd put myself in group 1 above, but for the very reason you cite in group 3). Since this is the Notability talk page I thought I'd share an essay I wrote a while back. Imagining a new way to look at the question of Notability We all know what Notability Is and How It is Demonstrated, but what we struggle with is how it is demonstrated on an article by article basis. We have 3.5M articles that for the most part meet our notability standard, but we continue to try and change guidelines based on examples that represent a very, very tiny fraction of our locus of articles. This is not only an impossible task, but counter-productive. Our energies should be devoted to ensuring that the next 3.5M articles created are notable. If we punt, that's the direction we need to head.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything that improves the quality of content here is a good thing. My concerns here have to do with the loss of good content at the expense of size restrictions. At some point there is a cusp, and when a section gets too big it winds up in a separate article, and this is where I think that we should give content the benefit of the doubt. A fair chance, if you will, to demonstrate that the subject warrants it's own space. A fair chance doesn't last forever. The wiki is a self correcting phenomenon, and in my experience, bad spinouts don't live long, and I find the good content gets reintegrated and redirected rather than deleted. That said, I think there are many cases where content is improperly spunout, for sure. My point is more that there will be some content that gets spunout for a good reason, and it might not necessarily meet all the criteria of WP:N, but it still warrants being kept on other merits. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Of the third group, I come closest to Collect's version. I would agree that simply splitting by alphabet is fine. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

SW, you have completely missed my position. WP:V applies to all content and that requires third-party sources, spinout or not. Notability on the other hand is a stronger standard that asks the type of third-party sources - specifically if they cover the content in depth - and that's what some are saying is needed for spinouts (eg, those saying a spinout is a new topic). --MASEM (t) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I may have lost something in the nuances. I probably mangled other people's opinions too. Either way... the real point is it would be hard to form a consensus on this issue and if there is a consensus it's probably more tight than not. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think we've got a good consensus. If you go back to the start of the conversation, the question is whether individual sections of articles need to be independently notable of each other and of the topic as a whole (e.g., you cannot have a section called ==Treatment== in the article Cancer unless you're sure that Cancer treatment is a notable subject). This has clearly been rejected.

As for the later tangent, the relatively minor dissension is irrelevant, because we've already got widely supported content policies that say plainly that every single article "should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

So, yes: All lists and articles need third-party sources, even if one or two editors may feel flexible on the point. It is not actually possible to comply with our basic content policies if zero "reliable, third-party published sources" exist on the topic. We need to use such sources as the basis of the article, and we can't do that if they don't exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, like SW before, I need to emphasis that there is a large gap in "requiring third party sources" (eg meeting WP:V) and "requiring notability". I do not disagree at all with the former; if you are going to spin something out and can't show third party sources for anything within in, you're probably making a bad spinout. But when you are spinning out material from a topic that is a long article, you've already shown that topic to be notable, there is no need to reassess notability of the new article, because the only reason it is being spun out is that there is a SIZE problem. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making a mountain out of this molehill. Actual fact: If no third-party sources exist, you can't have an article on the topic.

This would be true if this page, the GNG, and all of the SNGs had never existed.

You can't demonstrate compliance with GNG if there are no third-party sources; you can't comply with NOT (which absolutely requires the existence of at least one published third-party source); you can't comply with V; you can't comply with NOR; you can't comply with NPOV. Every single one of these major policies requires the existence of at least one third-party source. You can't, in short, have an article if there are exactly zero third-party sources—no matter what we write on this guideline.

And since "notability", as defined in the first sentence of this guideline, actually means "can have its own article" (rather than just "meets GNG or one of the SNGs"), then a topic for which zero third-party sources exist is "non-notable".

The issue Shooterwalker is dealing with above is narrow: Can you have an article on a toppic for which zero third-party sources exist? The community's consensus is very clear and very firm: the answer is "no". There are certainly additional requirements, but Shooterwalker isn't actually asking about that here. He's only asking whether the existence of third-party sources is optional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge gap between "spinouts must have third-party sources" and "spinouts must be notable". While SW's poll specifically focused on the first point (which as you state, I think has 100% agreement on), we're talking about notability of spinouts. You can have several third-party sources and yet not have a notable subject, and that's where there's a disconnect coming into play. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Massem... Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) seems to disagree with your contention... in talking about forking sub-topics it clearly states: "Each article on a subtopic is an encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section, which will be quite similar to the summary in its 'parent' article." and in the next section: "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit." I understand this to mean that Notability does have to be established when you fork off a subtopic. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Again: "article" is not the same as "topic". A stand alone article must meet all policies, and if you are splitting it off, you need to make sure to leave enough of a summary behind and on the spinoff to reintroduce the main topic. There's nothing about notability. Our policies say that a notable topic can have its own article, but the reciprocal, that an article must have a notable topic, is not in our policies. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Masem - could you list a couple of articles you believe fit your description above. ie. they were spun-out because of size and yet they are not notable in their own right? No need to defend them, I just want to see how we might apply the guideline. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series from Guitar Hero for one (since I maintain both). The latter is currently at 126 kb; the former at 53k. I would argue that many "Criticism of X" articles (eg Criticism of Wikipedia) are necessary spinouts (albeit potentially a naming problem due to perceived POV) of their parents.

More would include the "List of episodes of television show X" and "X (season Y)" articles in most cases (sometimes a season can be shown notable by itself but this is a rarity more than anything else). Most character lists from TV shows and other works also fall into this: List of characters in The Simpsons itself a spinout from the main show. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - good examples. Very evident as to their origin. Now for the sake of discussion, hypothetically, what if both Guitar Hero and The Simpsons did not exist as articles yet. In other words, no one had bothered to write them but someone did write Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series and List of characters in The Simpsons. As these articles exist today, how are they flawed from a notability standpoint? In other words, as standalone articles, how are they vulnerable to deletion on notability grounds given the sourcing they use? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking the hypothetical, I doubt I can show notability for "Cultural impact of Guitar Hero" per the GNG (this is an area I know what is out there, so I know also what's not out there); it's sourced but that specific topic is just not discussed at detail. (Some may call this a "synthesized topic" from other discussions). I don't know if I would have necessary as much of a problem with "List of characters from the Simpsons", but that's an exception for most television series, eg List of characters in Futurama may be a better article that I would have difficulty arguing about notability of the topic at hand ("Characters of Futurama"). --MASEM (t) 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think all those articles establish the notability of their topics as stand alone articles. They all have a good lede, and seem to cite sources that talk about the topic. What is missing? Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I stress the strict mechanical interpretation: I would not be able to challenge anyone that says there are no significant secondary sources that cover "Culture impact of the Guitar Hero series", because I know of no significant reliable sources for that. I very much appreciate that common sense is clear that it is a notable topic or subtopic and thus why I'm not worried about presenting the article. I'm trying to make the point here that when people say spinouts should be notable topics, they seem to imply a mechanical requirement of meeting the GNG, when really there's a lot more flexibility involved as to the "notability" or viability of the subtopic. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from... We don't just split off sections that are entirely sourced to primary sources. But we don't exactly insist on third party sources source that explicitly say "diseases that start with the letter A are of monumental importance to the world" or "the cultural impact of Guitar Hero can be seen in bedrooms across America". We end up with a compilation of third party sources that is almost WP:SYNthesized by a singular editor... Except that the synthesis is so ordinary that it can't be thought of as violating the original research policy. It's not exactly an original idea to organize a huge list into smaller alphabetical lists, or to spin off a common encyclopedic section. In that respect your position seems similar to Collect's, if a little more loose in that it applies to certain types of article splits too. Not that I'm agreeing with you... just trying to understand. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So if we admit that there is at least one case where the article can exist when it clearly does not meet WP:N on its own, then we are forced to conclude there can be a whole class of acceptable articles. Our job now is to determine what kinds of articles, and what their criteria for existence is, in the absence of using WP:N. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To SW, yes, you're seeing the logic that I'm trying to convey. I do want to stress very importantly that such spinouts should never be created before their time; eg, not every TV show needs a split-off list of characters from day one. This is the problem we had way back at the start of WP and what we're still trying to clean up today. Spinoffs should result from SIZE being a problem, and when spinoffs happen and its not a notable subtopic on its own it, it should be a spinout of a top-level section in an article that one would expect to be here - eg based on the synthesis needed for content organization. It's still subjective but there's clearly some cases better than ohters --MASEM (t) 06:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with what i'm quoted as saying, which I still hold is, in general, true at an AfD, I do believe all those sources should meet WP:V and have at least one third-party reliable source. However, that source doesn't need to cover the subject significantly nor does it need a second one. In addition for character and episode articles, which are probably the biggest problems for spinout lists, they still need to conform to WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SALAT (ie List of one-time Lost characters should never be appropriate). In addition, since I know those lists are a bone of contention to a number of people, I also think they should not be split into seperate lists, such as List of Bleach characters and then List of Bleach antagonists, unless both lists can meet the GNG. WP:SIZE gives a bit more leeway with regard to splitting lists.

However, and this may sound paradoxical, if a list is split because it becomes nigh impossible to edit (ie the engine cannot display all the changes), the requirements for most of those items can be waved entirely (though the info still needs to meet WP:V, even if its through primary sources); that or we should allow transfusion from specially created pages for those circumstances. I say that because those pages are the exceptions and IMO they are the best candidates for WP:IAR.

This practice should not extend to articles. In WP:AfDs articles are constantly treated by-and-large different and requiring the higher threshold of the GNG or another SNG (save ones they get a free pass like real-life locations). The lists still need to conform to the WP:5 Pillars and WP:COMMONSENSE for applying WP:SALAT as to what is an appropriate topic, and spinout lists of lists for most topics (season episode and navigational lists being one of the few exceptions) are usually merged/redirected to a higher-level list if they and their parent list don't meet any of those notability guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 19:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am struggling to understand the discussion above - not familiar with all the jargon. There seem to be two topics a) what should be included in a list and b) when should a list be allowed.

• On inclusion, I see agreement that the contents must be verifiable, debate on whether each entry must be notable. Presumably a list of mayors of a mid-sized city should be complete, but may contain some notable and some not-notable mayors. A list of Southern Baptist leaders could potentially be huge, so should only contain notable leaders. Perhaps a solution is to introduce the concept of size: "All lists must be verifiable, with evidence for inclusion of each entry. Relatively short lists may include both notable and non-notable entries. Longer lists should only contain notable entries." Something like that.
• On existence of a list, the rule that the collection of things in the list should be notable as a collection seems a bit too tight. A list of notable alumni of a given college is likely to be of interest to readers, but there may be no source that discusses the alumni as a group: they have nothing much in common. "List of very short people" seems silly, but there may well be sources that discuss and list very short people, perhaps whole books on the subject.

I am stuck on the second rule. Notability means reliable sources discussing the group of things listed as a group, not just discussing the common qualities of the things in the group. If all lists have to be notable, half the existing lists would have to be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to make a point by nominating List of Harvard University people for deletion. There are plenty of sources on the university, but are there any reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss Harvard University people as a group? On a quick search, I cannot find any good sources that specifically discuss this group of people, talking about how they differ from the general population. It seems like a granfalloon, not notable, and yet it seems like a useful list. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they are discuessed as a group - that is basically what Gavin wanted and what most people thought went to far. It is still a subtopic of Harvard University. However, that one might be a bit too broad for WP:SALAT as it doesn't specific what kind of people - students, faculty, alumni, janitors, etc.陣内_Jinnai 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am just looking at the current wording "... The topic of a list article ... is considered notable as long as there are reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss Xs as a group ... To establish notability, the sources must discuss Xs as a group or set." This the definition that will be brought up in AfDs. If a list is acceptable as a sub-topic of an article on a notable subject, giving examples, for example "List of [notable] Hindu Nationalists" (see also Hindu Nationalism), I would have less concern, but that is not what the current wording says. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As that was not agreed upon, I have reverted it. I kept what we have agreed on - if X is notable, List of X is. If X isn't, list of X isn't. Anything more does not have consensus yet.陣内_Jinnai 21:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the addition of the "Xs as a group or set" definition had clear consensus at the RfC... I don't mind argueing it out again if you want to challenge that consensus... but it did have consensus. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar is right. It isn't just a matter of saying "Gavin is more extreme than me and he got kicked off". Gavin took the most extreme position which is that you needed to find a reliable third-party list like the Billboard 100 or Nixon's Enemy List. This standard is much easier. Finding sources that have talked about a group is very doable. I'll bet there are reliable sources that have pointed out the importance Harvard graduates (plural) in the last year alone (let alone last week). If you really doubt it I can show you sources to show this is a much more relaxed standard than what Gavin pushed for. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think this still accurately captures the consensus of the RFC. Gavin's position was that the whole list had to be talked about, and we all agree that's too much. I do agree that it's a lot more likely that consensus considers a list notable if the group aspect (but not individual members) are discussed, but I am pretty sure there's several lists that are Featured that are lists that are a list of X, but where only the singular term X is really discussed and not so much the grouping. I am sure we want to encourage the use of lists where the grouping as a whole is clearly notable, but we cannot dismiss the latter. I would recommend not so much removing the language, but adding "generally notable" for the case where the grouping is shown notable, and remove the part about individual elements being combined to be shown notable. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't support removing the language... but adding a catch-all that acknowledges a little bit of common sense couldn't hurt, if phrased fairly. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought when I removed that it applied to Lists of Y of X and not just Lists of X. There hasn't really been that consensus for Lists of Y of X because of SIZE and SS issues.陣内_Jinnai 04:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at rewriting it to avoid discussing anything we clearly didn't reach a conclusion on. Everyone (I'm pretty sure) agrees that showing "List of X" as a whole, or the grouping of "X" as notable is sufficient for stand-alone; anything is is up to consensus but I've hinted that if you make the first two points work, you're better off. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seperate page

• Should this discussion be moved out into a more formal debate, off the talk page? That is, organize the discussion around the different aspects and possible policy statements, get a mediator involved? I find it very difficult to follow / summarize the current positions. (So where is the source that talks about Harvard Graduates as a group?) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it should not be moved off this page... the discussion relates directly to language in the guideline, and that is exactly what this talk page is for. Blueboar (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One reason it's hard to understand is because there IS a consensus that was reached months ago. The tricky part is finding a fair wording that captures everyone's understanding of that consensus, and it's made more challenging by the fact that we openly admitted there were some issues we did not settle. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with those who believe we had consensus on the recent wording change for lists. Although the new wording may seem useful, that can only be evaluated in the context of a deletion discussion. Predominately WP articles get nominated for deletion and get deleted because they do not meet our notability thresholds. Granted, lists in general have suffered under a cloud in that how do you apply a notability burden to a list topic? remains a question with an elusive answer. The previous wording, … reliable sources discussing topic X as a group was sufficiently broad to provide a reasonable standard for a very large majority of current and potentially future lists. In a deletion discussion for a list it is an easy standard to assess against the list article in question. Indeed discussing topic X as a group is sufficiently vague to allow for broad application. It shouldn’t be interpreted as some have called it—The Gavin Standard, but should be interpreted in this simple fashion. When something is discussed as a group two elements are present—some common characteristic(s) is (are) mentioned that binds the group and there is mention of multiple members of the group that share those characteristics. One cannot discuss a group of one, but groups that contain a multitude of members can be discussed without mentioning every member. It is an intellectually simple standard to apply to a list article, especially in a deletion discussion. Now I fully realize that we editors can contrive all manner of logic to spawn lists from larger articles in an attempt to negate a notability burden. But absent some sort of notability burden, there has to be some other burden that is enforceable in deletion discussions. This is where the language in this guideline needs precision. We don’t have that now and the current language provides no enforceable guideline because it is not precise. As we proceed on this, I would encourage us to always consider how any proposed language would play in a deletion discussion. Any new language should provide for a definitive standard or standards that can be unequivocally applied to an appropriate list.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above, but it does not solve the problem. The wording at present says if the group is notable, has been discussed as a group, the list is o.k. No problem with that, although maybe there should be some way of limiting lists that are potentially huge by saying "only notable entries" in that case. But then the wording opens the door to non-notable groups - and there will be valid cases like that - and gives no guidance. I am thinking of a hypothetical list of mayors of Middleville (pop. 150,000). Seems like a reasonable list, with some notable entries. But nobody has written a book or an article on "the mayors of Middleville". The group is not notable. And the list should have all the mayors, although only some are notable. I suppose saying "If the group is notable, the list is o.k., otherwise use common sense" is better than nothing. At least it resolves disputes about notable groups. But there must be a way to give more guidance, e.g. on daft cases like "list of yellow fruits" or "list of 12-letter words" and on sensible cases like "list of communities in region X" or "list of country Y ministers of defense". Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

From the RFC, there were clear cases that we determined that there was no way to come to consensus on, and left it at that. We can't prescribe something that is not descriptive of what is already done, and for such lists, it is hit or miss based on AFD. So the last thing we want to do is set a standard that will be argued either way. It is better to remain silent and let consensus determine the outcome than to force it ourselves. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not involved in the RfC, so should hold my peace. Just vaguely thinking there might be a way to reduce the grey zone by working in from both ends. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For the wording, how about a version that explicitly allows for exceptions but discourages them: "Notability guidelines apply to stand-alone lists and tables. A list (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is considered notable if the list as a whole (the group or set of Xs) is notable based on the guidelines given above. Stand-alone lists where the list as a whole does not meet notability guidelines are generally discouraged, even where each entry is the title of an article on a notable subject. Editors should not create such lists unless common sense says they are clearly useful to readers." There are still going to be AfD arguments, but at least it introduces the (subjective) criterion of "usefulness." Aymatth2 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd echo Mike Cline and Blueboar that we'd found a wording that was agreeable to most, even if it was a compromise. Trying to push it too far one way jeopardizes that compromise. Also we should consider that the RFC was full of compromises and issues left unanswered... so I'm all for acknowledging specific exceptions or ambiguities... for example, that we might make the editorial decision to limit lists to notable entries to keep them discriminate, or that we might even make an exception for navigational lists to actual articles. But some kind of "usefulness" standard across the board is really damaging... because it's painfully subjective (see "WP:USEFUL") with no grounding in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should eventually find a way to come to terms with some kind of compromise that doesn't allow any kind of list to be made, but I still think it needs to take into consideration SIZE and SS.陣内_Jinnai 01:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to simplify the current statement, which is a bit convoluted: "A stand-alone list, whether titled "List of Xs" or "Xs", is notable if the list as a whole (the group of Xs) is notable based on the guidelines given above. But other types of list may be allowed." Short and simple is good. I see no loss of meaning in this formulation. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds too much like "the list itself" must be notable (the rejected Gavin doctrine)... What we need to remember is that we are not trying to establish that the list is notable, we are trying to establish that the topic of the list is notable. And since a list topic is a group... that means that we need to establish that the group is notable. Blueboar (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar nails the problem with the "list as a whole" wording... and IMO he nails the solution too. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Even simpler, then: "A stand-alone list, whether titled "List of Xs" or "Xs", is notable if the group of Xs is notable based on the guidelines given above. But other types of list may be allowed." Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not being able to follow the sophisticated arguments here. Someone mentioned the List of Harvard University people. This list is connected with nearly every university and college in the US and often, Europe. In the Harvard list, there are several people with redlinks (or maybe "black/unlinked"). Those I would remove!

IMO, we should not be listing nn people (or things). I'm sure I have totally missed the point that everyone has made so clearly and painfully. Sorry. Student7 (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not missed the point. There are lists of notable alumni for most universities and colleges, although there may be no sources that show that the group of alumni is notable in itself, no books or articles about "The alumni of X college". In reality, the alumni of a given college may not have much in common - but these lists do seem to be of interest to readers. Because of the huge variety of lists, and differing opinions on which types of list are appropriate, it is extremely difficult to come up with clear-cut rules that can be used as guidance in an AfD debate. At least there seems to be consensus that if the group of things in the list is notable ss a group (has been written about as a group) then the list is o.k. - no point proposing to delete it. That should help avoid some time-wasting debates. But we are so far unable to get agreement on any other criteria for keeping or deleting lists.

Even the question of non-notable entries is not clear-cut. If a list is potentially huge, like the list of Harvard graduates, it seems reasonable to only include bluelinked entries. But a finite list like List of monarchs of Kent may include an entry (Æðelwald) for which there will never be an article because nothing is known about Æðelwald except the name. Yet the name still belongs in the list. It is a tough problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That is what WP:NOT is for. That's why it is mentioned in the page's intro. There needs to be some editorial decision as to what gets on because it is a slippery slope. I can already see that if we say items on a list must be notable people will want subsections on article page's all notable because items on some prose lists are divided into subsections and they would all need to be notable.陣内_Jinnai 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Aymatth - I seems inconcievable to me that Alumni associated with any notable university have not been discussed as a group by a reliable source. If we analyze this we find that Alumni is a plural and defines a specific type of group--graduates of an institution. If a reliable source highlights that Bob, Jim, and Joan are all alumni of X then Alumni of X is a notable topic, regardless of the potential total number of alumni in the group. Establishing which alumni get listed in the article (linked or not) is an editorial decision. Discussed as a group is not an onerous standard. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with lists of alumni, but to me notability of the alumni of a given college would only be established by a book or article discussing the alumni as a group, saying what is special about that group compared to the general public. There may or may not be such an article, particularly for the smaller colleges. It strikes me that a different or maybe complementary approach could be to start a page like "WP:Common types of list", with some guidance for each type: when it is appropriate and what it should contain. E.g. "Officeholder lists", "Alumni lists", etc. My guess is that the first ten such types would cover more than half the lists. Not a complete solution by any means, but could be helpful, and could be easier to reach agreement than on the more abstract criteria. Maybe this has already been discussed? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's a small college where the grouping of alumni are not talked about to meet this notability threshold, the list can still go in the page on the college itself, and even a redirect "List of alumni of College" can be made to point there. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory, the question of whether or not a list should be included in Wikipedia should not be related to whether it is in a stand-alone article or embedded in a larger article. In practice, of course, the discussions are almost always about the stand-alone articles. But how about the idea of specific guidelines for common types of list? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to notability, there is a huge difference between a "List section" (a list contained within a prose article), and a list Article (a list that is on its own as a separate article). There is no notability requirement for section topics within articles... there is a notability requirement for article topics. As to the issue of limiting lists to items that are notable... let's not confuse the notability of the topic (Alumni of X University) with the scope of the list (whether the list should be limited to notable alumni or not). Notability of the group tells us whether we can have a list article or not... Scope tells us which items should and should not be included in the list. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing that in practice the discussion will be about stand-alone list articles. If we can provide specific guidelines for the more common types of list article covering both notability requirements and what is typically included it could be very helpful. Very abstract guidelines can be hard to agree on - there are always exceptions - and hard for editors to follow. Specific guidelines, e.g. for lists of alumni, officeholders etc. should be a lot easier. Obviously there is no way to make specific guidelines for every possible type of list, but I suspect that most lists belong to a few common classes that should not be hard to define. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a worthy goal, but it is also one filled with many policy/guideline sandtraps to get us there. Once you verve to some more abstract cases beyond what we found from the RFC (such as "list of X in Y") there is very little agreement or consistent practices at AFD to make setting anything in stone nearly impossible. We can try to say more, but it would take a significant effort to affirm what works and what doesn't. At the present, it is best to remain mum, suggest what is the ideal, and let the rest sort itself out. I wouldn't deny it would be great to have more explicit lines, but right now that is just near impossible without flaming an edit war. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a first shot at User:Aymatth2/Common types of list. This might work - not sure. I am cautiously optimistic that by describing commonly accepted practices for specific types of list, there may be relatively little difficulty getting consensus. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good shot at starting it, but I'd say if you're going to use specific numbers then don't pick them from nowehere. The only place that really has had any number is WP:FLC when it suggests a minimum of 10 items, but they had gone down to 8 and rarely 6 or 7. No lower though and even 6 is pushing it. IMO that might be a good place to start. It's been removed now, but the criteria still holds basically. A SAL of 5 items probably isn't good enough for a SAL.陣内_Jinnai 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I dropped the count to ten, although that seems sort of small. Anyone, feel free to edit or add entries in User:Aymatth2/Common types of list. Edit wars encouraged! If this tentative essay has no hope of getting anything close to acceptance, there is no point promoting it to a WP: essay. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are so many different topics that could (and are) be candidates for list articles, I don't think listing a few of them will mean much. Are you trying to be inclusive, or just giving a few examples? Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What I did was just a sample, and my criteria are obviously open to debate. But I have the feeling that most lists fall into maybe 10 or 20 fairly standard types of list, and then there is a long tail of quite unique lists, like Fifty civil engineering feats in Turkey. I could well be wrong, but if (say) 20 sets of accepted rules similar to the examples I did cover 80% of lists, these rules could save a whole lot of time in AfD. I am not sure the best way to confirm the theory. Category:Lists has 29 subcategories, which in turn have more subcategories. One way would be to browse down the tree looking at the C and P counts. Another could be to just sample list-type articles (with "list of" in their name) and see if they seem to fall into common types. I will dig around a bit more. It may be a waste of time, but worth a shot. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While we may not be able to set a concrete number because there are always exceptions, I think we probably could work and come to a consensus on the minimum number of items nessasary to a list to be split into its own SAL. I don't know f that's appropriate for this guideline, but it is something else I think has potential for gaining some agreement (as List of X of Y does not)..陣内_Jinnai 23:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a worthy goal to come up with a guideline that talks about the appropriateness of lists within articles. But the notability guideline really focuses on stand-alone articles and lists, which wouldn't preclude a section (or list section) in another article... As for the "alumni" issue. Remember our guideline states Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. So you wouldn't even need an article talking about "Harvard Grads" or even "University of Southern California Grads". You'd just need a paragraph from a couple sources here and there. It's a very easy standard to meet for schools with a truly notable pedigree... and I imagine it being harder for a lesser known college. As it should be. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be fudging it a bit. But I am off on a different tack. See User:Aymatth2/Common types of list and associated talk page. It is starting to look as if specific guidelines for 10 common types of list could cover about 85% of all lists. Type-specific guidelines should be much easier to get agreement on than abstract guidelines, since they will tend to document generally-accepted best practices. Also, easier for editors to follow. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because X exists doesn't mean its accepted. The best measure is to review AFDs of lists and see which were kept or not as that shows where there has been some consensus for keeping them. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at AfD discussions is certainly a good way to validate assumptions about what is accepted as good practice. But although it perhaps is irrelevant, precedent is important to many people. If you look at the Category:Lists of television series, part of the popular Category:Television lists, you will find many articles similar to List of programs broadcast by ABC Family that have much the same format and contents, and have survived a long time. Perhaps none of them belong in Wikipedia, but a crusade to wipe them out is unlikely to succeed. Maybe more practical to define some reasonable guidelines for this type of list. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, just because something was kept in the past does not mean it will be kept if nominated again. AfD works on consensus, and consensus can change. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Standalone lists, particularly the type you describe, should only be created if the main page of the parent element is too large. Guides like yours will cause editors to think that they should create such just because its listed like that, and we really need to move away from that concept. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think a great next step on the whole lists issue is to create WP:AFD/LISTS/COMMONOUTCOMES, if you catch my drift. We've come to a decent consensus on the general stuff, but we always run into trouble when we try to generalize about the exceptions. Documenting common outcomes would help ground the discussion. Even if common outcomes aren't best practices, they show what we might reasonably be able to resolve and what we'd have to leave ambiguous. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Random break

• The only consensus so far seems to be that if a group is notable, a list of members of the group is notable. That seems questionable. The Monarchy of the United Kingdom is notable, and so is List of English monarchs. No problem. Waipoua Forest is notable, and so are a couple of trees in the forest: Tāne Mahuta and Te Matua Ngahere. But List of trees in Waipoua Forest is not going to make it through AfD. Between these extremes, lists are likely to be judged on other merits than notability of the group. It is true that defining rules for lists of TV series episodes or cartoon characters will legitimize such lists, but TV shows are a subject of great interest to millions of people. We should not be judgmental - they are notable. I like the idea of size guidelines for stand-alone lists, although they have to be defined carefully. An eight-line list is small to be stand-alone. An eight-section list with a paragraph or two in each section seems reasonable. Documenting common AfD outcomes would be useful, but if it is given in abstract terms will just turn into a morass of arguments. I think we have to get down from abstraction and talk about real examples, real types of list. Time for a break. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • First, remember that we say "presumed notable". There are other factors we consider that may not make a list that has a notable grouping to be notable itself. The forest example is good - every tree in the forest would be overly indiscriminate. But if you can at least start with a notable grouping, that helps to avoid groupings that aren't that way.
  • But again, we've tried to discuss other cases at the RFC and basically concluded there's too much discourse on other types of lists. Does that mean other types of lists aren't allowed? No - that's why its important to leave the langauge vague that we have a clear case where notability's assured, but that not meeting that test doesn't mean the list isn't appropriate. Yes, I would love to see the spaces filled to avoid AFD arguements, but it's better to leave it open to discussion than to get the answer wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Vague and ambiguous guidelines are harmful. They invite endless arguments about their meaning, when the editors in an AfD discussion could better consider the issue from a common sense viewpoint. I recommend clarifying this section: "If the group of things described in the list is notable as a group, the list may or may not be notable. If the group is not notable, the list may or may not be notable." Or just delete the section. If we cannot give meaningful guidance, better to give none. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP polices are descriptive, not prescriptive - we can't write anything that doesn't have consensus. And no, you're missing the point about the section. Notability is but one barrier for a topic being an article, but its an important one. We want to guide people to create lists that are notable so they will likely be kept, though there may be limited cases that fall under WP:NOT or other policies where we can't have that list. On the other hand, if you can't show notability, the list may still be kept, but it will require a lot of justification. Thus, we are providing meaningful guidance in-so-far as we can describe consensus today. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aymatth2 - I think in general the sizes you propose are okay, but they shouldn't be made absolute. I mean there are FLs with prose with less than 8 entries. That's why making it prescriptive is shouldn't be done. There's always going to be valid exceptions.陣内_Jinnai 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to understand Aymatth2's answer to me of several days ago. If a reliable citation said that Bill Gates's success was due to his schooling at Edgewood Junior High, then and only then, could we include him in "Notables" under the (fictional BTW) entry on Edgewood (and with that citation)? Otherwise you are saying that putting him in as a notable lists only a non-causal relationship which doesn't really belong in Wikipedia? Is that correct? Student7 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gates is in fact listed in Lakeside School#Notable alumni, although this section may be original research. The current guideline says "A list topic is considered notable if members of the group or set of entities are discussed as a group by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". If there are no sources that discuss "The alumni of Lakeside School" directly in detail, a stand-alone article would not qualify under the rules as stated. I don't think a publication by the school or Alumni Association counts: not independent. If a list is considered notable, perhaps a notable member that is not mentioned in any of the sources that discuss the group could be allowed as long as there are sources that show they are a member of the group. But first we need sources that address the group of alumni directly in detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that the requirement that the group be notable means that it should be possible to develop an article about the group, if there is not one already, based on independent sources that address the group directly in detail and avoiding any original research. Thus the List of Harvard Law School alumni should perhaps have a parent article on Harvard Law School alumni that discusses the traditions, customs, beliefs etc. of this group of people. That could be more interesting than the raw list. Perhaps a recommendation should be added: "If there is no article on the group, consider starting such an article and incorporating the list as a section of the article." Just a thought. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes there's little you can say about the grouping itself beyond basic notability, and if that part is short, it makes complete sense to keep the discussion of the group and the list together in the same article. But even if you split off the list part, you need to reintroduce the topic and reestablish the notability of the list grouping at the start. So again, in some cases, the list and the information about the grouping make best sense in the same article. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with that premise for complex topics - that a group must be discussed about in order for the list to be notable. A list of notable graduates from a school should not need to be discussed as a group - if they are all notable in their own right, there is no reason to not group them together as is done with Lakeside School#Notable alumni on the article's main page. If the list becomes too long that it dominates the page (and that list is certainly not close to that atm) then WP:SS should be used and it should be split; the topic of it would still be Lakeside School. Just because no one has talked about them "as a group" doesn't mean they aren't all allumni and we shouldn't be listing them as that (assuming they can be verified as such). It also doesn't mean we should be putting every allumni in there. If the person wouldn't meant the notability standards here, they shouldn't be in that list.

If we can have the list inside the article without showing the notability of the group, just the indivisuals, why does it somehow need more for the same info if its split off because of SIZE and SS? That's a double-standard.陣内_Jinnai 20:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For a topic to be notable it must have been addressed in detail by independent sources. A few casual mentions of the topic are not enough. There must be detailed discussion of the topic by independent sources. If the topic is notable, there will be enough material available for an article. If there is not - no detailed discussion - the topic is not notable. I do not understand the concept of "basic notability". Either a subject is notable and deserves an article or it is not. Assuming that lists should be restricted to notable groups, lists should either be contained in articles on those groups, or should be children of articles on those groups. That should be spelled out. The question remains whether, and if so how, the wording should express the concept that a list may be notable if the group is not. Convoluted and blurred wording is not the answer. Guidelines at this level must be simple, clear and unambiguous. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. These guidelines cannot be any of those without simply not saying anything because there is no easy way to say X is an acceptable topic for a list since its parent article is notable and its getting detailed and a long, but Y is not. About the only thing you can say is that does not repeat things in this guideline is there should be a decent number of entries, but saying 8 is okay, but 7 isn't is too bright of a line for a guideline like this.

The only other thing we can try to do is the daunting task of nailing down a better idea of articles could fit under a single topic and where the line would be drawn and the only way to do that is define topic. Right now there seems to be some people who think topic=1 artilce and others who think topic=an article and its list (Foo and List of Foos) and others who think topic=parent article and any article that would logically be branched off from it because of SIZE and SS and then there are a few somewhere inbetween.陣内_Jinnai 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I sort of butted in there. Personally, I am o.k. with lists of related things where readers may be interested in that list of things, even if the group of things with the common characteristic may not be strictly notable. Categories are like that, and I don't see a big difference between lists and categories except that lists show up in search results and can give a bit more information and context. Maybe part of the problem is that categories are poorly supported: they just list article titles and nothing else. If support for categories was a bit richer there would be no need for lists.

As for size, it is a matter of judgement, which applies to all articles. A huge article is hard to read, but as soon as sections are split out there is a risk of forking. A double standard definitely applies on lists within articles versus stand-alone lists, which get far more attention. We would need a fairly fundamental overhaul to the Wikipedia structure to eliminate that bias, to make questions on the validity of sections equal to questions on the validity of stand-alone articles. Really a section is just a sub-article, and it should be possible to include a section in more than one article. If Wikipedia were more structured the distinction between sections and articles would not exist, but it may take a while before we get there. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On your first point, if categories were better supported that would only remove one type of list: navigational. Other types of lists, ones that do comparisons on items wouldn't be removed. It also would not remove the popular media ones like episode and character lists. It might remove alumni lists and the like if they simply grab items from multiple articles and group them with some basic info added that would make it a non-navigational list.

To your second point, I do agree to a large extent it is a matter of judgment, but as I've noted before, there do comes times when it becomes clear that technical limitations on page size are being hit. When it becomes difficult to maintain an article because of resource load and the info there is all expected to be there because of WP:PAPER, the argument that its not to big becomes increasingly difficult to make.

But yes, it would be nice if we could transclude stuff more readily. It would problem of SIZE entirely. SS would still remain though and we do summarize lists that are split off.陣内_Jinnai 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In a reality show article, the "list of participants" is not notable. While it belongs in the article, it seems to me that it could not be forked (for whatever reason, can't think of one that makes sense) because the listees are dependent upon the main article for being listed. The list could not "stand alone". They are not notable and therefore a forked list/article would not be viable. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there's actually several shows where the whole of the participants - even though they are all non-notable before the show and likely afterwards - is a notable aspect of the show itself. This isn't universal for all such shows - the less visible and the less known about who's on there, the more likely its not appropriate - but its also not outright wrong to have such lists. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you give an example? Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree fundamentally with Masem on this. If a reliable source provides significant coverage of a group of participants in a reality show (i.e. an ensemble group of participants) then a standalone list is notable. If there are no sources, then the SAL topic is not notable and other rationale may need to come into play to establish the list in WP.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And to give a counter example, while the show is notable, I would not expect we would ever have "List of The Price is Right contestants" since rarely are individual contestants even covered in reliable sources because we learn so little about them during their time on the show. Even for a few contestants that I know briefly made the news (the guy that perfectly bid a showcase which had a whole bunch of controversy over if he cheated), they don't need much beyond a name drop.

And as an in-between example, List of Jeopardy! contestants seems to have accepted a notability bar to limit the list to a handful of people that have been notable (eg Ken Jennings). But I'd never expect of full list of people that have been behind those podiums again due to lack of RS about them. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently changed the wording to by very clear as to what the guideline pertains to and what it doesn't because I have found some editors using it to say more than what was agreed to here. I have made it clear there is no consensus for complex lists, but at the same time left wording in that every list should still try to meet the notability guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut added for List section

FYI - I found myself refering to the recent changes in the List section alot in other discussions and noted that it did not have a shortcut. That required an inconvienent navigation to link to the right place--so I added one-- WP:NOTESAL --Mike Cline (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do subject-specific guidelines override the GNG

Do the subject specific notability guidelines (e.g. WP:PROF, WP:ATH, etc.) override the GNG? That is, should articles for which "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" cannot be found be allowed if they meet a subject-specific guideline? Mr.Z-man 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The value of SNGs is to provide reasonable presumptions that the GNG can be fulfilled. Using them to trump the GNG runs against the very basis of the notability principle and the basic content principles from which it arises. --Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The SNGs are meant to describe cases where GNG-accepted coverage can likely be found given time and resources for editors to find them (based on past experience and consensus), but not to evade showing notability via the GNG indefinitely. It is not overriding the GNG, only a means to show notability is met if there is no obvious GNG at the immediate time. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Vassyana and Masem. Absolutely not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Just a note, I'm bringing this up because of a recent discussion on an RFA, specifically regarding WP:PROF. According to some people on the RFA, faculty bios and university press releases are considered acceptable sources to establish notability, because of the sentence, "For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted." It was asserted that this interpretation was both the correct one and the commonly applied one at AFD. Mr.Z-man 21:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Does that quoted sentence simply refer to sourcing uncontroversial details, as opposed to establishing notability? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My argument is the former, but others were arguing that the latter was the commonly-held one. Mr.Z-man 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, that sentence isn't in PROF. That RfA was one where there was a lot of heated discussion. I'd be more concerned if those arguments were actually being upheld in AfDs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Its in the "General notes" section. And according to people at the RFA, that argument is the one that's commonly used at AFD. Mr.Z-man 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, it is. It sounds to me like it's worded badly there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that sentence is quite clear. It speaks about "routine details". How can details ever lead to notability? It obviously means that such details can be sourced by the mentioned primary sources, nothing less, but certainly nothing more. Anyone who wants to interpret this as saying that notability can be derived from this has a serious case of wikilawyering, IMHO. --Crusio (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be my understanding too, but Mr.Z-man says that editors are engaging in exactly that kind of lawyering. And, for simply sourcing routine details, I think we hardly need to even say it at all in a notability guideline. I've suggested at WT:PROF that we correct that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Both the GNG and the SNGs are all just guidelines. They all create presumptions, not guarantees of notability. So yes, a politician in a national legislature can, and should, be kept even if he or she hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. But in many cases, we should delete athletes who only marginally pass WP:ATH and fail the GNG miserably. No hard and fast rules are warranted. Both the GNG and SNGs have their roles to play: where they conflict, the community should balance them on a case-by-case basis at AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I winced at "athletes who only marginally pass WP:ATH and fail the GNG miserably", even though I think I know what you mean and I agree with what you say the outcome should be. In principle, a page that fails GNG miserably should not be able to pass ATH, unless ATH is being misread, or unless something in ATH needs to be fixed. Is there something in ATH that is repeatedly being cited as establishing notability in cases fitting that description? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This DRV (Alan Thompson) was a fairly emphatic rejection of the argument that failing the GNG trumps a consensus to keep an article that passes WP:ATH. I'm not saying it was the right outcome in that case or every case, but the community is entitled to act upon an SNG in that way. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I went back and reviewed that page, the AfD, and the DRV. It strikes me as something that sits smack dab at the edge of what ATH was an attempt to resolve, and is a borderline call. Now if it were to happen that I were made Supreme Ruler of Wikipedia (an excellent idea, by the way!), I would choose to delete that page and all others like it. Unfortunately, however, we have this little thing called community consensus. The issue boiled down to, on the one hand, the subject played in a league that clearly satisfies ATH, but on the other hand, the sources cited (and, it appears, all the sources that could be found after a lot of searching) were sources where it's a matter of opinion whether they do or do not satisfy what ATH says about non-trivial sourcing. It's a matter of community consensus whether those sources suffice or not. If one concludes that they are at least marginally non-trivial, then they are non-trivial for GNG as much as for ATH. As such, the consensus was entirely reasonable, as was your close, in my opinion. Perhaps people like me need to get ATH rewritten to get rid of the "played at the fully professional level" guideline, but I don't expect that to happen in the foreseeable future. Bottom line: I don't think this was a case of passing ATH and failing GNG so much as being a matter of opinion as to whether it passed ATH. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As another illustrative point, I've created about 200 biographies of Malaysian politicians. Nearly all are federal parliamentarians. In my view, less than half would meet the GNG. But now wikipedia is the only place Malaysians can go to get basic verified information about their local member of Parliament. We'd delete all of that? Of course not. Because the GNG is not the only path to notability. WP:N, the core guideline itself, says right at the top that "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines..." No more needs to be said. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what happens a lot with these types of people or topics that barely meet notability. People complain that notability doesn't allow articles on them. But we can remember, we can also have list articles that incorporate numerous non-notable or weakly-notable topics into a single notable list. You can verify these people via WP:V, its just not important to give them their own article. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)If there aren't any reliable sources to meet the GNG, where is the information verified from? Mr.Z-man 22:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary and tertiary sources can be reliable. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And there is often coverage in secondary sources that is not "significant". MASEM: how would you turn this into a viable list entry? None of the coverage is significant, but there's more than enough verified information for a separate article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's say there's 10 of these people that have been elected into that position. The position is notable, so a list article would start off explaining the position, how people are elected to it, etc. , then you can have a table with a large row to include the brief info about each person. You don't lose information, just presented without a new article. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The list (the scope of which is unclear to me) would be unmanageable with that much information (party, election results, biographical details, etc. etc.) Why not have separate articles? It's a much more flexible and sensible way to present the information. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Simply because that some people are extremely emphatic about notability and article creation that its best to find solutions that avoid creating articles at the cusp of being considered notable without losing information or searchability (through redirects, natch). --MASEM (t) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So can someone please explain to me why WP:N says "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines..." and we just brought down an RfA candidate for expressing views entirely in line with that statement? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About where N says that, it really should say "presumed" instead of "considered". That's the sense of the paragraph, but not of the sentence when the sentence gets quoted in isolation. Thanks for pointing that out. In my opinion, that needs to be corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's not much comfort to GiantSnowman though. Poor guy was "grasping a concept" that was explicitly clear in the core guideline. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't an RfC on the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be. If we're denying the tools to candidates on the basis of opposers misconstruing guidelines, we need to talk about it. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, why make the change? can already indicates the SNG is not a free pass. Replacing "considered" with "presumed" can therefore be read as explicitly watering it down. I'd suggest reverting it and asking for consensus, given that it has been there for a long time. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I said in my edit summary that it was WP:BRD. I don't understand your reasoning about "can". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"can be considered" adequately conveys the message that passing an SNG isn't an automatic pass. "can be presumed" waters it down significantly. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think users are interpreting "can be considered" to mean "it's ok to go ahead and conclude that the page is for sure notable" when the intent of that paragraph all along appears to me to have been to explain the concept of "presumption". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From where do you discern that intent?--Mkativerata (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From the evil voices in my head (mwahahahaha)! No, actually, from the sentence that comes directly before it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't follow that reasoning myself... The sentences currently operate quite happily together in my view. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming from the background of the discussions that went into creating the new ATH, where the editors developing it extensively discussed the concept of "presumed notability". You can see examples of those discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 2#Proposal: Add overarching modified WP:GNG clause, and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 2#WP:GNG issues of local/national coverage; look particularly for comments by DJSasso, who discusses it several times. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A very narrow forum for a "long-standing consensus"? Especially when the previous WP:ATH said nothing of the kind. Nor, as far as I'm aware, do any of the existing SNGs. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was explaining how I understood the word "presumed". Please take a second look at WP:ATH and observe all the times the word "presumed" appears in its text, starting in the nut shell at the top, and continuing from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you how I understand "presumed". It means that when the SNG says "keep" and the GNG says "delete", the GNG can override the SNG, but will not always. Your view seems to be substitute "can" for "will" and remove "but will not always". Where's the long-standing consensus that says your view (or my view) are accepted? (Outside of WP:NSPORT, which has created its own understanding that differed from the old WP:ATH and every other SNG) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got to give you points for tenacity! To clarify my intent about "can"/"will", I personally understand it as "can" the way that (I think) you understand it, but it seems to me that other editors have been misconstruing it as "will" even though it doesn't say so, and that's what I've been attempting to clear up. To answer your last question, I guess that's what I'd like to find out with my proposal below, so let's see what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I only mentioned "long-standing consensus" because you allude to such a thing in your proposal below but don't explain where it comes from. My own suspicion is that NSPORTS has created an understanding about the SNG being a "guide to the GNG" that isn't, and never was, reflected anywhere else. NSPORTS is entitled to do so of course, but that doesn't mean it is the accepted, or correct, approach for other SNGs. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But you said that Wikipedia is "the only place Malaysians can go to get basic verified information," either you're exaggerating to support your position, or you're writing articles with no sources. As for the list, what biographical details? The only detail not related to his position in parliament is a single sentence about his previous position. Mr.Z-man 22:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the only place they can get the information in the one place. But my questions are still unanswered: (a) why the list, why not a separate article? (b) why are you so adamant of a position that is directly contrary to the lead of the relevant core guideline? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Because core policies trump guidelines. Without any reliable sources, we have nothing to write an article with, it will fail WP:V. Without secondary sources, an article can be nothing but bare facts or original research. Without independent sources, there is no way to establish NPOV. And without significant coverage, the article will be nothing but a perma-stub, better done as a list entry. Mr.Z-man 22:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on all points, I'm afraid. (1) An article can fail the GNG but still be sourced to the hilt with reliable sources. (2) An article can fail the GNG but still be sourced to the hilt with reliable sources and therefore have no NPOV problems. (3) Most, but not all, articles that fail the GNG are stubs. Those that are can grow. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The presence of reliable sources does not eliminate the potential for NPOV issues. If the only significant coverage comes from non-independent sources (which can still be reliable), then the article will end up written mainly from the subject's POV. In cases where there are no controversial issues, this may be the NPOV, but there's no way to verify that without significant coverage in independent sources. Mr.Z-man 22:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

An article can fail the GNG but still be sourced to the hilt with reliable and independent sources. Just like the one I gave as an example above. All articles are subject to NPOV issues: failing the GNG alone doesn't expose an article to any more demonstrable risk of that. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Only because there is so little information in it. Its just bare facts. None of the sources currently in the article could be used to expand it. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The article isn't problematic in any way, by reference to core policies and principles. So there's no reason to override WP:POLITICIAN and delete it. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also no reason it couldn't also be merged into a list. There is basically no information that could go (or is already) in Members of the Dewan Rakyat, 12th Malaysian Parliament and Malaysian general election, 2008. There's no reason that list entries have to be just a tiny little thing. List of Governors of Ohio, for example, a featured list, even includes a separate list of other offices held by people in the list, which could cover most of the "biographical details" that supposedly make a list impossible. I just don't understand why people think a bunch of tiny stubs is a better arrangement for content than a single list. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can appreciate that view. But by the same token, I happen to think separate articles are a better way of arranging this information than a list. It a question of formatting, and reasonable minds may differ. But there's no reason to twist notability guidelines (I say twist, by reference to the wording in WP:N that I have pointed out) to force one formatting choice over another. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On the original question: The GNG and the SNGs are supposed to work in harmony with each other. Given this... if we have a conflict between a SNG and the GNG, we need to have a centralized discussion and reach a new consensus that will resolve the conflict. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Is there an SNG were it's grossly out of step with the GNG? Shooterwalker (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NSPORT as it is based little on the likelihood of sources but more on simple occupational positions. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• My simple answer to the question (can the SNG override the GNG) is yes, when doing so doesn't violate WP:V, WP:NPOV, and our other policies. The GNG and SNGs are on equal footing and in some areas we can find lots to write about but not find much in the way of sources that meet the GNG. A classic example is, say, a member of the Royal Academy. These people have all had huge impacts on their fields and their work has generally seen significant coverage in reliable independent sources. But their bios are generally only found in non-independent sources (say their home institution or the like). Does that make an article on them in violation of WP:V? Of course not, there are massive number of reliable sources for most of these people (I'd assume all, but...). But for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted. We have plenty of independent RSes addressing their work (generally in academic papers written by others in the same field but also generally only a paragraph or two per paper). The NPOV issue with respect to their bios seem unlikely to even exist ("routine uncontroversial details" are unlikely to cause a NPOV problem). WP:PROF guides us through this issue. In the same way, if their are members of the national assembly who don't have bios that are independent, but we _do_ have independent sources about actions they have taken or positions they hold, we should generally have those articles (even if the bio section needs disclaimers like "according to his official biography..." or the like). Part of NPOV is avoiding systemic biases in the articles we have. If we can write a NPOV, Verifiable article on anyone who meets WP:POLITICIAN, we should! If we can't a list is probably more appropriate. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• This recent AfD hinged on this very question. In my opinion this argument took the validity of the SNG too far and until the question of this RfC is answered there will continue to be issues. J04n(talk page) 01:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like a good AfD to me. Different editors having different views on how to apply (so-called) conflicting guidelines. Schmidt makes an extremely common sense contribution and the differences are properly reflected in a "no consensus" close. We shouldn't ever feel that our guidelines need to give clear black and white answers. If the GNG was black letter law we'd exclude a lot of good stuff and include a lot of trivial tabloid crap. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • They shouldn't necessarily be black and white, but they really shouldn't contradict each other either. The no-consensus close was the correct one, but it shouldn't have been necessary. If important processes like AFD are failing because of ambiguous rules, something needs to be fixed. This is an even better example of the issues than the Malaysian politicians. In this case, there's only one sentence of content (the bare minimum "X is a Y", which even that is even bordering on original research in this case), a single primary source and an unreliable source (presumably the rest of the filmography could also be referenced to primary sources as well if they all list him in the credits). Unlike the Malaysian politicians, there aren't any reliable secondary sources at all, including insignificant mentions or non-independent ones, and the primary sources are just film credits. There is zero biographical information. Mr.Z-man 02:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise this debate was going on, but I've been having a similar discussion with the folk at the cricket wikiproject about their SNG (see here). Now as far as I can understand the criteria there have emerged because it gives a convenient cut-off criteria, and is in-tune with what the members of that project think of as "real world notability" (vs "Wikipedia notability" as defined by the GNG). I have a problem with these articles because it seems to lead to a lot of articles which are purely based on statistic sites with apparently little attempt to find sources, particularly for people who have only played a few first class matches.
My main concern is with BLPs of people who have played very little top level cricket. Their few appearances may have been noted in the statistics, but we don't know much about the rest of their life. That wouldn't be a problem if they were well known as a cricketer - in that case it's what they would probably be remembered for. But for someone who only played a few games what they did with the rest of their life would probably be much more significant, and in attempting to write a biography on such people we end up misleading by omission. Quantpole (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that some of the SNGs still favor the concept of "inherent" notability, while the GNG has to some extent rejected that concept, and has evolved to favor "demonstrative" notability. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good point (and IMO those ought to be fixed). Another thing people need to remember is that not all SNGs set a lower bar than the GNG. Some are slightly higher, or at least are sometimes perceived that way (e.g., by people who think that two articles in the same newspaper by the same reporter should count as "multiple" sources rather than as "one"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Structurally speaking, every time someone writes a requirement in a SNG that is not in wp:GNG, they are conflicting with wp:GNG. But also, the fundamental structural meanings of the SNG's get completely turned on their head depending on what the answer-of-the-day is to the never-really-answered-and-probably-unanswerable mother of all questions. Does an article need to meet just GNG, just the applicable SNG, or both to get in? EITHER of the last two answers essential means overriding GNG. I think that the current situation is confusion, but somewhat along the lines that nothing waives the core tenets of GNG (which means that much of wp:music is irrelevant) and that some of the stricter standards of of the SNG's get applied on top of that. I think that the REAL answer would be to evolve wp:GNG so that it does not need the numerous and spotty crutches of SNG's. 12:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are basically two types of SNG criteria: Ones that add a require in addition to the GNG for topics within a specific field (generally to avoid indiscriminate coverage, such as how WP:EVENT is structures), and ones that proposed a temporary alternative to the GNG for a topic in a specific field that can be used for a period of time while sources per the GNG can be found and collected to show the subject notable (with the existing article helping to bring in other editors to help). (How long that can be used is completely arbitrary, but say, if you put up an article by a SNG claim and 5 years later you still haven't added sources, prepare to see it deleted). No SNG can make a claim that the GNG never has to be met because that conflicts with WP:V, WP:OR, etc. It should be implied that in SNGs that provide alternatives for the GNG, this is only a short term allowance and GNG evidence is expected to be added in due time. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumed versus considered

The second paragraph of the lead currently reads:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.

I propose to change the word "considered" to "presumed" in the second sentence:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.

As discussed in the RfC above, there has been confusion about the relationship of the SNGs to this guideline. My understanding is that there is a longstanding consensus that the purpose of those SNGs is to provide convenient guidance as to what is likely to pass GNG, rather than to provide a free pass to pages that fail GNG. That's the meaning of "presumption": one presumes notability instead of having a bloodletting at an AfD, but that doesn't mean that it's been proven that GNG has been met if, in fact, it can later be shown that it has not. I don't think this one-word change actually changes the meaning of this page, but it will help clarify that point of confusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It does change the meaning: it brings the SNG sentence in stark contrast to the GNG sentence: "can be presumed" versus "is presumed". I really don't think it is sensible to run this proposal at the same time as the RfC above. You are proposing a text change at the same time that a policy change is being proposed. The latter should come before the former. The former should be a consequence of the latter. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Aw shucks, I think I'm just suggesting a way to resolve the issue that the RfC discusses. And if you think it changes the meaning, then there really has been a problem! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that the change is designed to reflect an "understanding is that there is a longstanding consensus", that I find difficult to discern. The current wording suggests there is no such consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm basically asking if this would be an improvement, so let's not get bogged down in the wording of my comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the wording accomplishes much. I'm sure that whatever distinction you're trying to make makes sense in the context of a talk page. But I think the meaning will be lost on anyone who comes to this guideline a few months from now. You're not doing anything to clarify the relationship between SNGs and GNGs. I think this is the first time anyone has directly asked how SNGs and GNGs work together. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But it is important to understand whether the change is (a) designed to better reflect existing consensus; or (b) is actually proposing a new consensus. If (a) is asserted, it should be done without too much trouble. (b) requires substantial testing and discussion. We have to be clear on that, so assertions that a change reflects long-standing consensus absolutely have to be tested. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This 13 February 2009 diff changed "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." to "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the the more subject-specific guidelines". The edit summary "reworded intro to use simpler language and less run-on sentences. thing was sounding like a warranty card." indicates no change in meaning was intended. Thus, either wording means that meeting a subject-specific standard (SSS) creates a presumption that a topic is sufficiently notable. There have been discussions about whether SSS can trump the GNG, particularly SIGCOV. I've seen these with respect to PORNBIO, but there have probably been others as well. That argument requires ignoring not just the GNG but also a number of things at WP:PEOPLE including the first two sentences of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria as well. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That history suggests reverting "considered" to "presumed" should be uncontroversial but only if "can be" is changed to "is". --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I could agree to that. While we're discussing this, though, let me bring up something more. Given that we generally try to word guidelines in such a way that there is discretion in the individual case, perhaps we should qualify both sentences as "generally presumed" (although I don't feel strongly about "generally"). And trivially, we should probably also take "to" out of the internal link. Thus:

A topic is generally presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also generally presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that adverb waters it down beyond what is currently accepted. Either "presumed" (as the wording originally was) or "is generally notable" (as it is in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria) would do. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a complicated topic. I asked the question twice before here, and the answer from both of them was that the specialized guidelines provide a "second way in", which is very different from the above. And don't forget, "overriding" the GNG often means imposing stricter criteria. For example wp:music "overrides" wp:GNG by excluding certain sources that wp:GNG allows. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability is an "exclusion" approach, setting a bound when we include an article for a topic. Overriding that is specifically meaning to reduce the bounds as to what is excluded. I don't think anyone has a problem with a SNG being more strict than the GNG, its only when the SNG allows for weaker topics than expected by the GNG is there a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do. In general I'm loath to see guidelines that exclude otherwise notable topics without very very good reasons. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Usually there are very good reasons: while I criticize NSPORT for being too allowing for simple professional merits, it also imposes a necessary threshold on indiscriminate coverage to avoid every high school sports star from having an article just for being reported in local papers. This is why notability is not a guarantee of having an article. --MASEM (t) 04:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that most of you are forgetting the actor here:

• The person doing the "presuming" is usually the person writing the article. We're saying: If the subject meets the GNG, then most likely (but not guaranteed) your work won't be merged or deleted.
• The people doing the "considering" are the folks at AFD. We're saying: In reality, outcomes are sometimes determined this way (and, BTW, no guarantees either way).

I oppose changing both instances to "presumed" because it's simply inaccurate. If your chapter of a lunch club barely scrapes by GNG with two articles in your tiny local newspaper, you might "presume" it to be notable, but you're almost certainly going to lose at AFD when independent editors "consider" it to fail ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We are relating to the term "notable". Both the GNG and SNG "presume" notability by meeting certain requirements.

But when you relate to "can have an article", that's the point decided at AFD and thus we consider both GNG and SNG metrics and the encyclopedic nature of an article. SNGs allow for many presumed notable topics but don't merit an article because of limited information. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's comment drives home to me vividly how much this is an area of the guidelines where everyone has been looking at the same language, but understanding that language to mean entirely different things. I would actually argue that, although the first actor chronologically to "presume" will be the page creator, everyone else who is subsequently involved in assessing the notability or lack thereof of the page is also in the business of presuming, in the process of that "considering". (And I thought that two articles in a tiny local newspaper would fail the current understanding of significant coverage, independent of the subject. But obviously even that is open to interpretation.)

I look at the "presumed" concept this way. At WP:V, we set the standard as verifiability, rather than truth. That's a very sensible acknowledgment that editors don't necessarily know the truth (alas). I think the same recognition of our limitations applies to sourcing for notability. Most editors look for sourcing via a search engine. But there are reliable sources that can only be found in a library, and maybe not your own local library. The fact that those aren't online does not mean that they don't exist! Consequently, finding that there aren't GNG-worthy sources in a web search does not prove that a subject fails GNG. The SNGs, used properly, allow editors who don't have direct access to every source in the world to make a reasonable decision about whether a page is likely to pass GNG. Thus, they provide presumption of notability, not proof of notability. Mistakenly thinking that they instead provide proof is what leads to the incorrect (in my opinion) claim that a page can pass an SNG while failing (as opposed to not having been shown to pass) GNG.

In any case, we are discovering two things. One, we don't really have community consensus on the answer to the question raised at the top of this RfC, and, two, even if we did, we don't have language in our guidelines that unambiguously explains what the guidelines mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

True. I think it's been clear for a long time that we don't have a true community consensus on notability. The best we have been able to achieve is the current compromise, which I believe is a rough consensus. For what it's worth, I personally support your edit to change "considered" back to "presumed". My reading of the rough consensus is that meeting either the GNG or an SNG creates a rebuttable presumption that can then be tested at AFD.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree to anything that makes SNGs seem to bypass the primary guideline. Regardless of passing a sub-notability guideline, any subject must also pass this one. The sub-notability guidelines lay out when something is more likely to, but they can never bypass the requirement that the subject actually must be noted to be considered notable. If we have insufficient sources for an article, we cannot, regardless of other considerations, sustain it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Our goal is that every article should eventually be reasonably comprehensive and of decent quality. An article can't meet that goal without adequate sourcing. The value of the SNGs therefore is to identify subjects that are likely to lead to acceptable articles, free of constantly having to justify their existence because a google search doesn't immediately dig up a couple of good sources. They also recognize that the availability of sources differs for different subjects - there may be plenty of quality and easily available online sources for a major internet meme, but not so many for even prominent Malaysian politicians.--Kubigula (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Then let me ask, very cautiously, whether we now have consensus to change "considered" to "presumed", in this way (which is, I think, my understanding of talk higher up in the thread):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Also, why don't re replace "any of the" with "a". --Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that edit... with a caution... We should not present the SNGs as an "alternative"... all of our policies and guidelines should work together in harmony, and editors should follow all our policies and guidelines at the same time. If any two policies or guidelines are seen to conflict, there needs to be a centralized discussion so a consensus can be reached that will resolve the conflict. We should mention this. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Good, I agree with "any" --> "a". And for Blueboar's point, let me take a bold stab (just in talk, for now) with:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. Any apparent conflict between a subject-specific guideline and this page requires centralized discussion; such conflicts normally should not exist, and should not be introduced into specific guidelines for the purpose of circumventing the general notability guideline.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first two sentences. I'm less sure about the third. Such conflicts do exist at present. I believe the SNGs should be shortcuts to reduce the amount of debate about specific cases and to allow comprehensive coverage of particular classes of subjects. They document classes of article subjects that will typically meet WP:GNG, and when exceptions arise, we will allow such articles to exist for the sake of consistency (not having gaps in classes) and simply to reduce the amount of time wasted at AfD that could be spent editing articles. This implies that the SNG are additional criteria to WP:GNG that should be straightforward and objective to apply. Some of the SNGs fail this at present; in particular, WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria 1,4 and 7. Such criteria need revising. Qwfp (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My reason, of course, for suggesting the third sentence in this talk is exactly for that reason. I think it's that issue that editors are trying to find consensus on in this discussion. Personally, I agree with what Blueboar said just above the break, that we need to have harmony between GNG and the SNGs. Otherwise, these discussions will never be resolvable.

But, having said that, I'd also be perfectly content to make the first two sentences, without the third, the wording of the guideline, for now. We could then continue to discuss the much-more-complicated issues of the third sentence afterwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with dropping the third sentence, at least for the time being. What is "centralised discussion": (a) discussion at an AfD to resolve a conflict on a case-by-case basis; or (b) an RfC-style discussion to amend an SNG? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that I never thought about what "centralized discussion" means. I just repeated it from Blueboar's comment. Do we have consensus for the first two sentences (without the third)? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't see anyone else objecting. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm going ahead with it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice of RfC: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film that might interest members of this project. It refers to sections in film articles such as this and this. The RfC is attempting to create consensus on whether or not notability of differences between a novel and film is determined by secondary sources. Are these sections a violation of WP:NOR? We need comments from as many people in the community as possible. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The next step on lists

I have been thinking about how to incorporate the distinction between the various types of lists (navigational vs. informational) into this guideline... and so (as a conversation starter) propose the following:

Rough draft proposal

There are three broad types of lists on Wikipedia:

• Disambiguation pages ("dab" pages) are lists of Wikipedia articles on people places and things that all have the same name. For example, there are many notable people named John Smith. To aid readers in finding the article on the specific John Smith they want to know about, we have created a disambiguation page for the name John Smith, listing the possibilities. Disambiguation pages are considered purely navigational aids, and are not considered articles. Thus, the notability guidelines do not apply to disambiguation pages.
• Navigational lists are lists of Wikipedia articles on topics that have some trait in common. Such lists do not present any information about the articles listed. They are similar to disambiguation pages in that their sole purpose is to aid readers in finding articles. However, the notability guideline does apply to such articles to the extent that we must establish that the common trait is not trivial.
• Informational lists are articles in list format. These lists differ from navigational lists in that their purpose is to present the reader with information. They list people, places and things that share a common trait. That common trait is the topic of the article. Such articles are also known as stand-alone lists or tables.

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or whether there are other means of forming stand-alone lists. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

Comments on the rough draft proposal

The last paragraph does not quite fit into my concept, but I wanted to incorporate the current consensus language with as little change as possible for now. We can work on specific wording later if people like the general approach. So... let's start with the general approach... would something like this move us in the right direction? Blueboar (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything I would strongly disagree with. But for a guideline I basically agree with, I think it's unnecessarily complicated, even WP:CREEPy. Think of it this way. The consensus from the last RFC handles most informational lists (except "X of Y", which I'm assuming we'll continue to avoid for now). And disambiguation pages haven't been a problem as far as I can tell, and might not even fall in the scope of what most people think of as a list. So all that leaves is the navigational list issue (or "index" as I prefer to call it). We could take the current language from the previous RFC, add something for navigational lists, and we'd be good. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind making a note on the first 2 as the 3rd one seems somewhat redundant and possibly contradicting the last one (depending on how one reads it with regard to complex lists). I am not sure how widely people thought navigational lists should be exempted, but I can see us saying disambiguation pages are not covered here.陣内_Jinnai 06:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• One comment I would have is that we need clear examples of a navigational list and what separates it from a list of Xs where every X just happens to be linked but contains no other information (often the case of List of People from X). My gut tells me that the only clear case we can make is that disamb lists are special pages outside of normal mainspace rules and thus the only clear ones to not need to be shown notable; even though I think we all know navigation lists can be this way too, there's a fine line between navigation and informational that could be gamed. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there is a gray zone when it comes to "Navigational" lists (indexes). I suppose the question is... can we make a distinction between navigational lists and informational lists, and if so, how? My proposal tries to draw a line based on intent (or "purpose"... ie: is the purpose of the list to point readers to other articles, or is it to present information about the items listed?), but perhaps such intent is too difficult to determine for this to be a viable distinction. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I should point out I have no problem saying "navigational lists do not need to be notable", but its as you say, can we fine a bright enough line to avoid gaming in the future? --MASEM (t) 15:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can bluntly say "navigational lists do not need to be notable" (or more correctly, "navigational lists do not need to establish notability") ... after all, we don't want editors to create lists with a purely trivial and inappropriate connection between topics (List of articles on people who like the color blue is technically navigational... but hardly an appropriate list). Notability fits in there somehow... the hard part is explaining what that "somehow" is. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case we'd punt it to WP:SALAT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.陣内_Jinnai 16:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell... a "navigational list" or "index" is a list that only includes links to notable entries on Wikipedia. I don't personally support creating an exception for navigational lists. But I would make an exception anyway as a show of good faith to the more inclusionist Wikipedians... especially since I'd appreciate their cooperation in creating a definition of "indiscriminate". It might help to actually look at some navigational lists that have survived AFD in practice since policy is meant to follow practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It may prove useful to review: Portal:Contents to see the mryrid of navigational and outline type lists already in the encyclopedia. Dissecting their content may guide us in writing a better guideline. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wen through and composed a selection of lists through navigational lists brought through December 2010.

• List of bus transit systems in the United States - keep
• List of post-industrial music genres and related fusion genres - keep
• List of HIV-positive people - keep (with the caveot that it be kept up and verified for BLP reasons)
• Tourist attractions of Beijing - renamed to List of landmarks in Beijing
• List of Nintendo DS chess games - rename to List of chess video games
• List of fictional pandas - no consensus
• List of space pirates - no consensus
• List of articles about abortion by country - delete
• List of ships - delete (no action taken)
• List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants - delete
• Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens - delete
• List of XMPP client software - delete陣内_Jinnai 18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am not sure I would classify all of those as "navigational"... which may highlight a flaw in my approach... what is Navigational for one editor may be Informational to another. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Blueboar that the lists above are not primarily navigational, but poorly contrived informational lists. When I think of a navigational lists these two are prototypical examples: Index of Montana-related articles, Outline of Montana. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... the focus of these two lists (or indexes) is on articles. Their purpose is to guide readers to articles that relate to Montana, not to convey information. I would agree that the notability guideline should not apply to these lists. Most of the lists Jinnai suggested we look at are focused on people, places or things, and their purpose is to convey information to the reader about those people, places or things. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and on a personal level I agree, however I'd wager that the majority of editors would be against such a narrow definition of "navigational".陣内_Jinnai 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And this is the problem I've addressed above - unless there's a clear definition, what is a nagivational list can be gamed. I'd rather us not say anything about it (only talking about disamb list at this time) until we've better resolved issues --MASEM (t) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So how do we better resolve the issue? Isn't that what we are attempting to do by discussing it? Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there's presently no major problems in how consensus handles the issue, then there's no rush to make policy/guideline to resolve it. We're clear that disamb lists aren't an issue , so we can add that, but I don't think we can easily define navigation lists even though I think we agree that a "navigation list" is excempt from notability - but because there's no definition of nav list, we shouldn't be creating it ourselves. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting it. Aren't most navigational lists confined to data about notable entries that have articles, and only notable entries that have articles? Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's just a standard informational list. "Navigation" come into play in making it easy to the reader to move about a large, multiple-article topic and not meant to be used as informational. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean. No information. Just a list of links to articles. Maybe a table that lets you sort chronologically and alphabetically. But principally just a bunch of internal links. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the same thing. Take the above examples of links to Montana-related articles. They're in a nav list because they are disparate articles except they connect to things about Montana. More often than not, if you are trying to research Montana, you may go back to that list from any article on it via a link to be able to jump to another article. On the other hand, take "List of people from X"; unlikely that there would be a return link from the article about the person to that list, because you're not navigating that; the list is just information about which people are from X. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab pages:Do we need to refer to disambiguation pages in this guideline? Perhaps all we need to do is clarify on Wikipedia:Disambiguation that these pages are not articles and do not need to assert notability.

Navigational and informational lists: Surely such a distinction exists between navigational and informational lists but there is really no consensus on what this is. Some even say that all lists are navigational devices, so we should be carefulabout drawing a distinction between the two. I'm of the opinion that most all "list of" type articles should have at least some non-navigational information and the only purely navigational list articles would be indexes. I don't think that indexes are articles and would support other criteria besides notability being used to determine their usefulness and appropriateness. ThemFromSpace 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me take a shot at a navigation list definition: it is one where 1) there is miminal to no information on the individual elements (often this info is a brief summary of the topic linked) and 2) there are typically bidirectional links to and from the list and the pages linked in the list. The link back to the list may be one brought in by a template (like a navbox, a chronology list, or other means), but meant to allow the reader to back out to the nav list and then into a new topic. EG, these are the equivalents of TOCs or indexes in printed works. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What about ones that contain minimal amounts of information. I am thinking of one that was created last year from a topic I am working on List of Dragon Quest media. It clearly meets #2 and its basically a list of links that pertain to the topic Dragon Quest', but there is some basic information on there for most entries, which it seems would invalidate it being a navigational list.陣内_Jinnai 16:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with Masem's definition. FYI List of fictional swords just closed as a clear keep and people cited the fact that it's confined to notable entries as part of the reason. The older version of the list that got more informational and strayed into every sword in every work of fiction appeared to be more at risk of deletion... but not this new version. Is that because it's more navigational now? Or is it because it's more discriminate? Or just better sourced? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there's something more, a third point I can't put into words. I believe it has to be with the broadness of the list or more specifically about categorizing Wikipedia than categorizing data. That is, taking the Montana-related list, that's clearly navigational as Montana's a pretty broad topic, and the list's purpose is to catalog all Montana-related articles on WP. On the other hand, List of Dragon Quest media is not to catalog the articles, but to be a summary of the actual information. It's such a very subtle point though... --MASEM (t) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case then its also not purely navigational. If it were, there is no justification for redlinks in a navigational list. Other types of list - yes, but navigational ones are to help guide users to content directed about it and Montana-related index clearly has redlinks that may never get topics about them. I also don't think such a strict defintion for navigational lists like the montana one would fly (although it certainly is one).陣内_Jinnai 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are redlinks in that, and they are redlinks of never-have-existed articles as I've spotted checked. Some of them seem unnecessary like the early calvary links. But, now, given this structure, it looks like it follows from other state-related lists, where some articles like "Agriculture of X" may actually exist, and (ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) it could reasonably expected to have this article in the future. Yes, in general, there should not be redlinks on navigation lists, but if it is a navlist that parallels the format of several others, it may be appropriate. But still, that's not the distinction I'd consider in evaluating navlists. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it does have to be a criteria at some point. For example, List of fictional warhammers would seem to be fine based on the above AfD closure as a warhammer is a notable weapon. However if it is filled with hundreds of redlink artilces and maybe a handful of wikilinks, then its clearly not a good navigational list.

On the aside though, my other point was that using the montana-related list as a way to define "navigational" lists I don't think will gain larger consensus considering the AfDs I showed above. There needs to be a somwwhat broader definition if we are going to base it on the larger consensus outside of us here and face up to that scrutiny.陣内_Jinnai 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

See here's what I think is, now talking about it. Navlists are ones that group articles that share a common high-level, broad topic. Normal informational lists are ones that group topics that share a narrow characteristic. Understanding the difference in the construction of the encyclopedia between "topics" and "articles" is very important here to make this distinction clear. In such cases, List of fictional swords, "Fictional swords" is not a high-level broad topic compared to Montana, and its purpose is to group the topics of fictional swords. For the Montana navlists, their purpose is to group and organize the numerous articles that involve Montana in the most general way. There is a non-bright line between these two but it's not that fuzzy to make sense of. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can win that argument because your placing arbitrary standards not even supported by the current guideline or any other. Consensus seems to be against that narrow definition once you get outside of this page.

The closest thing to an actual definition we have now is WP:SALAT#Categories, lists and navigation templates - "As useful as lists are, certain lists may get out of date quickly; for these types of subjects, a category may be a more appropriate method of organization." which basically sounds like if you can create a category for it, its a navigational list. List of Dragon Quest media could probably exist too as a subset of Dragon Quest.陣内_Jinnai 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no definition of what a navlist is - we talk about it but don't really say what it is or isn't. That's step one to determine if notability applies to them. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it help if we describe it by what it is not? Every list is going to have links to other articles. But a navigational list is going to be only (or mainly) that without much additional info and definitely no mention of non-notable members. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

May need to split this up to discuss each subtopic separately. I am concerned about dabs. People are sometimes added indiscriminately there with redlinks or links to odd articles when the people aren't notable and never will be. So I might link "John Smith" blue link to an article containing his name. But this John isn't himself notable, so why is he being disambiguated? Then there are redlinked dab (=nn). Why are they there to confuse the poor reader or editor?

Having said that, there are policy pages that concern themselves with dab notability discussion and they find redlinks and nn just lovely, thank you. Fie on them! Student7 (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking more than a passing discussion to a non-notable topic as such that it is a likely search term and we would have used a redirect page but can't do so because of disamb, we need to include that on disambig pages. (Not a full example, but Steven Slater, the Jetblue slide guy, is likely going to be redirected to the airplane incident article, as non-notable (BLP1E) but certainly an acceptable search term). Redirects and disambigs are cheap - as long as there's verified encyclopedic information about the topic somewhere on WP, there's no reason not to make that topic a possible search term or entry on an appropriate redirection page.

Of course, on redlinks on dab pages (where there was never an article and not just a forgotten link when pages were merged/deleted) I agree we should not have them. They're navigational in purpose so non-links should be removed. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The entirety of the conversations leads me to believe that we just need another classification for pages - artcles, lists, dabs, and indeces. Index-class could be applied to the strictly navigational lists, and their existence could simply be a consensus based process left up to AfD and common outcomes, although I suspect that trivial intersections would be the most followed rule of thumb for preservation/deletion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would quibble to the extent that lists are articles (they are articles in listified format). I would actually simplify the classification to "Articles", and "Nav pages" (dab pages, index pages, category pages). Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would gladly create two different classes of list: an index which is mainly about linking to articles, and a list which is about introducing new information that isn't found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Having two different classes would probably let us produce a more accurate guideline that most people can agree with, even if I'd rather just apply the GNG to everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the navigational lists definition is simply wrong. A navigational list might well provide some information about the items in the list, so that the reader knows which ones he wants to navigate to. A well-constructed nav list probably contains some information. For example, List of cutaneous conditions is (IMO) a nav list, and it contains not merely the bare blue links suggested by the description above, but important snyonyms for the bluelinks, a variety of images, and the occasional sentence to identify the contents of a given section. The presence of this additional information doesn't change the fact that the point is to get you off that list and into a real article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an exemplary nav list actually. Not that every nav list should be that good. But ya, all blue links, brief bits of information to explain what each link is (I'm starting to see the similarity with a disambiguation page), and a due number of photos... Shooterwalker (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a great list for sure. Just to note a few things: The pics are decorative rather than informative, each being an (apparently) arbitrary selection from its associated section (though, of course, a more complete set of pics could be provided). The occasional phrases to identify an individual list item, clarify rather than inform (and so do not require citation). The section lead sentences generally justify the groupings, hence are informative and require (and have) citation. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing against that list, but if one holds that up as a prime example of a navlist (and clearly notable, no issue there), and we are trying to say navlists are exempt from notability, people will use that example to fight tooth and nail to say that their "List of fictional characters that wear monocles" (all with bluelinks) or the like are exactly the same thing and don't have to show notability. Which goes back to my point that I really think we can't make enough of a strong distinction between navlists and infolists to claim exemptions for either, unlike the much clearer dablist definition. I would say that anything in Portal: space should be considered a navlist and exempt and that's maybe what we should push people to do is move or keep lists like the Montana articles in Portal to indicate it's "meta" arrangement of WP and not arrangement specified by sources (as is the case with the skin conditions). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

hmmm.... List of cutaneous conditions is an interesting case... In some ways, it is mis-named... It is far more than just a list (as it contains a substantial amount of well cited informational text in sentence/paragraph format), to me it is an article with sections in listified format... however the part that is listified is navigational in nature (serving as a link repository to sub articles on the specific conditions)... I also note that we have another (much shorter) article on the topic of Cutaneous conditions (which also contains listified sections). I think the entire topic area could probably use some restructuring... I would temporarily merge these two articles ... and then re-break out the navlist parts to a linked Index of cutaneous conditions that was formatted more like the Montana index. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Navigational list criteria

Try and think about a class of Lists called Navigational using these criteria.

• Purpose: The primary purpose of a Navigational list is to provide an organized set of links to articles (or potential articles) having a relationship to the list topic. Navigational lists typically are not designed to convey information about any specific article beyond the article name. The application of Notability to a navigational list is different than a article type list WP:SAL in that the navigational list topic must be notable because we would not create a navigational list related to a non-notable topic. i.e we would not have an Index of chemistry articles or Outline of chemistry if Chemistry wasn’t notable. Just like we would not create a DAB page for Gobbledegook unless there were articles with that name that already existed.
• There are 3 subclasses of navigational lists—disambiguation, indices, and outlines. Each subclass has its own unique characteristics
  • Disambiguation
    • Relationship: Articles that share the same or very similar names
    • Organization: Typically alphabetically (within topical sections) for complex names
    • Wikilinks: Mostly links to existing articles, but redlinks are tolerated
  • Indicies
    • Relationship: A broad topical relationship to the overall list topic. Ie Index of Montana-related articles. All articles in WP which touch on the broad subject of Montana may be listed.
    • Organization: Alpha-numeric without any amplifying information. Indices may contain images for eye-candy.
    • Wikilinks: Restricted to existing articles. Redlinks should not be allowed.
  • Outlines
    • Relationship: A broad topical relationship to the overall list topic but in an enumeration that outlines all the existing and potential (desired) articles (especially high-level overview articles) related to the topic.. ie Outline of Montana
    • Organization: Topically, with topic heading consistent with the board sub-topics typically associated with the article topic. There is typically little or no expanded information for each entry. Outlines may contain images for eye-candy.
    • Wikilinks: Both links to existing and potential articles are included. Redlinks on subjects critical to the overall coverage of the broader topic are encouraged as Outlines are excellent tools to promote expansion of content on any given broad topic.

In my view, if a list isn’t a DAB, an Indices, or an Outline based on the above criteria, then it is not a Navigational list. We need to think in terms like Navigational (Capital N, a class of list) and navigational (lowercase n, duh all WP articles are navigational in some form). If the list isn’t Navigational, then our notability standard for SALs should apply. If we adopt criteria like this, I don’t think it can be gamed. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike... this is an excellent analysis... and I agree with your conclusions. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If we start with this (no reason why not to), this should be expanded to its own guideline page, with WP:N referring to it, and furthermore we would need counter examples of (good) infolists that don't qualify as navlists. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... an SNG just for lists? Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound here like a SNG. Seems more (at the moment) like content guideline than notability guideline. I would also think Wikipedia books should be added there.陣内_Jinnai 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a content guideline, not a definition of notability. It also gives clearer definition to the things we have that already exist, and what the community expectations are. Along with linking the topic to WP:OCAT to avoid the Fictional characters who wear monocles example above, this keeps everything that is actually presenting content outside of the navigational definition. It also allows lists that originate within articles and become their own page per SPINOUT to be retained as Index of people from New York City without adding more requirements than allow it to exist today. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I'm definitely not thinking an SNG, and more a content guideline (what a navlist and how best to present it). There may be a section on notability, and here specifically calling out what is and isn't a navlist so people cannot try to wiggle in. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If we can clear that, it'll be a start to defining what lists can and cannot be spunout and still be considered part of a topic. It doesn't really get at the probably more contentious one - complex lists, but it atleast would define things so that people couldn't hide behind, "it's a navigational list" argument.陣内_Jinnai 01:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think navlists would ever have been the type of material that is spun out from an article. Navlists are meta-information linking articles as listed above, and would never have made sense as part of an article. Yes, that still leaves the issue of spinout-able infolists vs those that shouldn't, but that's a bigger issue that's not as easy to resolve as this one (where we just need to define navlists correctly). --MASEM (t) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, "People from..." lists often result from a spinout, at least for reasonably large cities. Those would still be navlists as there is not much to say about people who were born, raised, or resided in a certain place. I would certainly expect them to become "Index of people from..." in order to keep out the non-notables. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a great start. Hats off to Mike Cline. Again, it's not a notability guideline, so it wouldn't even be an SNG. I might call it a guideline on "WP:navigational aids", which would include disambiguations, indices, outlines, portals, maybe even nav-templates. But Mike Cline only does a good job explaining what kinds of information you include in these "navigational aids". We also need to know when a navigational aid is appropriate or not. In my mind... it's only "obvious" or "not novel". List of fictional characters with blue hair is too novel, too non-obvious to be a way to group things. But list of people from Montana is an obvious and non-novel way to organize people. I worry that standard is too subjective. I'm trying to come up with ideas. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be just me, but I wouldn't consider "List of people from X" a navlist, despite that it matches closely with all of Mike's suggestions. What might be the difference here is that navlists are a grouping of notable topics (re: articles) that all discuss or are related to the higher topic, while infolists are generally a grouping of topics that share a common trait (one that is not about the structure of the encyclopedia, obviously). --MASEM (t) 02:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a real subtle distinction. It also seems highly debatable. Couldn't you say any group of related topics are merely just a common trait? Couldn't you say a few articles with a common trait are related topics? (I'm pressing you because I'm stumped myself... and hope we can get some idea of what is or isn't a nav list.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That's trying to split hairs too much for what that page is and its not clear that most people would agree with that definition. I mean how is List of people in Montana different from List of people in Sicilia, Roman Empire (assuming both only cover notable people)? What is the difference between List of fictional characters with blue hair and List of fictional characters in European fables?陣内_Jinnai 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No no, that's not the distinction, when I talk about the Montana example, I'm pointing to Outline of Montana. The problem that I'm seeing is that if we claim "List of people from X" is navlist, that's a stone's throw away from many, many lists being also called navlists, more than I think we want. And I don't think that my separation is perfect as I don't argue that the skin condition list above could be treated as a navlist. There's something more we're missing I think. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that it doesn't because I am certain that there will be a number of people who will disagree with you. Better to not mention it and hope than try to create something that would only jeopardize the content guideline.陣内_Jinnai 03:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is difficult. Not only do we disagree... we also have trouble explaining the principles that lead us to disagree. Normally I'd say that disagreements should be resolved by looking at reliable sources. But when we're trying to carve out an exception to the high standard of sourcing in the GNG... that kind of defeats the whole point. (You can see why in my view it's almost better to just apply the GNG. I wish we would... but I won't insist.) Shooterwalker (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a good way to do this: a proper navlist will be notable by the concept that the whole of the topic is spread out among several articles (such as "Montana" or "skin conditions"). A infolist that isn't notable but being passed off as a navlist will be obvious by our existing notability guide for lists. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Simplify - A Navigational list can only be named Index of ... articles, Outline of ...., Name (disambiguation) or Name (with the DAB hatnote, footnote). A list named List of .... etc. is a SAL not a Navigational list. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So, something entitled: "List of people from X" would be considered Informational in intent (focused on the people listed) while something entitled "Index of people from X" (or better yet: "Index of articles on people from X") would be seen as Navigational in intent (focused on the articles listed)?... I like it. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While the intent is right, it will be gamed ("Oh, you're saying my "List of X" is non-notable? Bam, it's now "Index of X", and thus doesn't need to show notability").

Maybe a completely fair question to ask (because I could be presuming one thing), but what is everyone's opinion on a list like List of people from Montana: informational or navigational? --MASEM (t) 16:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Its informational, its a SAL, it doesn't fit the criteria above. It is notable because many sources discuss People from Montana as a group. If the criteria are sound, then gaming becomes difficult (not that it won't happen) but I believe it would be rare. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So, we should have a separate article on People from Montana which discuss the topic in broad terms? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

With the previously established concept of notability of info lists, we don't need an article on "X" to have "List of X" as long as the grouping of X is considered notable. It is actually quite coming that "X" and "List of X" are really the same article, with X discussed in as much depth as necessary to establish the topic as notable, before listing the rest out. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, do I disagree completely. People from X lists are completely navigational as the only single trait that every person on the list will have in common is being from X. There is really nothing you can say about people from Montana that can be reliably sourced to apply to everyone on the list, so how would it be expanded beyond an index? Also, there should be no need to call anything Index of articles on... because the "articles on" portion would be implicit. It should be the same way that List of notable people from... should not be used as the "notable" is already implicit and should not be used. The caveat being that every entry in an index of People from X should have a source to support that the person actually lived there at some point. Indeces have no exemption from sourcing. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(as an aside... I'll just note that only one entry at List of people from Montana has a source to verify that the person actually lived in the state at some point. This might be OK if it were restructured as a navlist... it definitely is not OK if it is considered a infolist... this has nothing to do with notability of the topic, however. On that... surely there is a source out there that would substantiate the claim that being from Montana is a notable thing.) Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think its too close to call. That's it. I'd want a widely published RfC on this before we concretely say that List of people from Montana is not a navlist. As you said Masem, the way you view the difference is subtle. The difference at that level amounts to splitting hairs.陣内_Jinnai 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As an after note... List of philosophies is a perfect example of a nav list... just an alphabetized link-list of articles with no information. It really should be renamed Index of philosophies. Blueboar (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that we should try to use article titles to indicate whether the list is "informational" or "navigational". For one thing, a list that I create and intend as purely navigational might be expanded into a perfectly acceptable informational list by someone else. If we need to make a note to let other editors know what we're thinking, I suggest simply leaving a note on the talk page, rather than creating another arcane convention. Wikipedia needs less complexity and fewer secret signals, not more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to boldly start a new page

Guys, we're really slamming this page. It's going to be 200K before long. This means that nobody on a mobile device has any prayer of leaving a note here, and many people with elderly browsers are going to be unhappy.

Given that we are pretty much in agreement that whatever the other page needs to say, it is some other page that needs to say it, would someone please boldly start a new essay/informational page/guideline/WP:NOTAGged page and put whatever they think the best ideas are on it?

Please don't get too hung up on creating perfection. The name and contents can all be changed later. Just get started, and please announce the new page here and at WT:SAL so that any interested person can join in—and anyone who isn't interested can get back to the normal business of this page.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)