Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal (buildings, structures, and landmarks)

concensus regarding notability of places of worship

After watching the outcome of this AfD, I feel that we should all come to some concensus regarding notability of places of worship. In this AfD, I favored keeping the article for various reasons (I didn't describe them all), but really, one of them was I thought this was a good place to start in terms of the future on this topic, and before we do so, I felt we should err on the side of keeping.

Question has been brought up over whether a place of worship should be inherently notable. But the truth about most places of worship in the world is that they are "run of the mill." They are very average, and though they all have a history and are of high importance to their own members, and may very possibly be written about somewhere, they are of minimal importance on a world scale or away from the city, town, or neighborhood where they are located.

If all places of worship in the entire world were to be labeled as notable, this would be going in the direction of allowing articles on small, localized businesses, such as corner stores, and very likely, each and every one of the perhaps millions of them in the world. That would lead to an article on every street, every house, every person. And Wikipedia would be the encyclopedia of everything. A line has to be drawn.

What I would like to see here is a concensus on what makes a place of worship notable. As Wikipedia tradition is not based on numbers, it should not be its age or the number of members it has, as this would make drawing the line not so easy to agree upon. Even if it is the largest or the only one of its kind in a location, that is still not enough, because whatever it is, if you look at a lot of variables, I'm sure you can determine it holds some title like that somewhere. There are some places of worship (like the one in the above AfD) that are only a few years old, yet have been accepted, and there are some that are hundreds of years old, yet are little known to more than a small crowd.

First and for all, this discussion should be neutral to all religions, and preferably, should not mention any specific religions unless absolutely necessary. The purpose of this discussion is to get an idea on what makes a place of worship notable as a building, an organization, or an institution. Hellno2 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we are in roughly the same territory as high schools. Current Wikipedia policy allows all secondary schools as notable, but not elementary schools A typical town of 100,000 has around three high schools, and we should probably aim at setting the bar so that no more than two or three churches in a town qualify as notable (I would prefer fewer than that).

My suggestion for the criteria of notability is that a church must be notable outside it's local area. That essentially means there has to be news coverage from outside the region - not the town newspaper. I would also suggest that it should be coverage for more than one thing - i.e. not just "kids from Podunk First Baptist came up with a really good fundraising idea". I would also say "not from denominational newspapers". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's a fine example of US-specific reasoning, starting with high schools. 3 churches per 100,000 is over the top. Take, if you would, the town of Pisa (est. 5th century BC, pop. 90 thousands) and its 15 churches listed in Category:Churches_in_Pisa and make your choice - which 12 of 15 should be deleted? NVO (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• "must be notable outside it's local area" is a bad idea IMHO. That kind of guideline/policy would employ the "Local" clause of WP:N, which we know does not exist. We cannot set any arbitrary limits on what is notable withing any given area, other than what has multiple nontrivial WP:RS's to confirm it is notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This guideline is truly misguided

This guideline seems to be an effort to get past the general notability requirements laid down in WP:N. Notability guidelines should be laying down exceptions to WP:N: cases where, despite the existence of coverage in multiple sources, the topic still isn't notable. For example, a local band that gets regular coverage in the entertainment sections of local newspapers, but has never signed a record contract will fail WP:MUSIC ... despite having multiple reliable sources covering the topic, the band still isn't notable. That is what this guideline should be trying to do for buildings: lay down the rules for when things don't get articles despite having met the general notability guidelines.
Kww (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Quite to the contrary, I think it is problematic when people make exceptions by deleting things that meet the general notability guideline--such as deleting local bands, or local anything. I personally think Wikipedia is enriched by such local content. Rather than creating guidelines used to delete things, I think these subjects are best handled on a case-by-case basis. The debate should center on whether the sources are reliable sources and whether the coverage is significant. If these conditions are met, then the subject stays in wikipedia, no booting something out based on highly subjective arguments about it being "too local" or "not important enough". I especially oppose creation of guidelines that attempt to override WP:N. Guidelines should clarify, not override. Cazort (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Misguided for a different reason

1. The authors try to balance between building and organization and fail to do so. Office towers are notable, hotels are not. What about mixed-use towers? What about conversions - hotel to office and back? etc. Don't tie notability of a building to its function (type of organization), this is quite a different subject.
2. Buildings are in fact simple to wiki-regulate, as they are, largely, independent of national bias. A brick is a brick, anywhere, it has no social side. Once you step into organizations and functions, national, non-universal realities kick in (i.e. high vs. middle schools, colleges with campus vs. without campus). Quite undesirable.
3. Still there needs to be a formal treatment. Add a simple overriding criteria: all internationally and nationally listed memorial buildings (exact formula depend on national jurisdiction). NVO (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion is an example of why this type of arbitrary subject specific guideline proposal typically fails. Just rely on the simplicity of WP:N and you will be just fine. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think this proposal is unnecessary and counterproductive. Cazort (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

a similar proposal

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (architecture) a similar proposal. dvdrw 03:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• another static carcass. Isn't it time to tag them as "obsolete, don't take seriously"? NVO (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want. Has this proposal been aired at village pump policy? dvdrw 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Landmarks?

The text doesn't really doesn't address this aspect of the title, but it would be helpful if it did...maybe something like "Buildings designated or registered as historical landmarks are considered notable because the historical landmark registry itself can be considered as a reliable source and thus confers notability"? AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• It will depend on national/regional quality of these registers. International practice varies. Consider a case when any building, say, over 50 years, can be listed simply to evade a takeover or, on the opposite, to consolidate properties for a future redevelopment. Also consider cases when a listed building has been long ago burnt down, rebuilt, fasadomized etc. but still remains of the list. There is no need for a separate rule beyond WP:N. NVO (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that having a government designation is the perfect sort of bright-line rule that we should use. No debate, no AFDs. If it is so designated, it should be in.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Schools

Now that there is so much variation in what makes a "high" school: some go from 7-12 grade on, some are just 11-12, I think this is a bad distinction. There is no reason to exclude any public school. Every geographic location gets a listing, I don't see the harm in permitting every school to get listed. Come on, if every pro athlete and pornstar award-winner is in, why not every school? more students actually go through elementary schools than high schools given dropout rates, so they actually service more students over their lifetimes. The arguments at WP:IHN really sum this up.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Travel guides and their relation to notability

There is one significant problem I can see with notability guidelines for locations of any sort. That is, obviously, travel guides, which often provide at least a two to three sentence statement on the variety of places they mention. Personally, I have to think that any of the major international travel guides qualifies as a reliable source, but am less certain what qualifies as significant coverage from such a source. Would, for example, every restaurant covered with a short description in at least two such guides qualify for a separate article. If yes, do you know how many such buildings would qualify under those terms, and should we honestly consider that they would all be notable based on such travel guide material existing on them? John Carter (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Guideline needs a do-over

This guideline as written is bad. It will let things like small rural hospitals and every private kindergarten in, which is not good.

May I recommend this as a fresh start:

Split criteria into "as a building" and "as an institution."

"As a building" criteria should be "listed on a national historical register, OR which meets WP:N using sources that are not routine. Routine coverage is any coverage you would expect from a similar building in the same area. Most local coverage will be routine."

"As an institution" should be "has received a national award, OR which meets WP:N using sources that are not routine. Routine coverage is any coverage you would expect from a similar institution in the same area. Most local coverage will be routine."

Plus a catch-all "Failing this, any subject which meets a different Notability guideline."

Routine coverage varies by city and by type of building or institution. For small towns whose newspapers cover every local business, being covered extensively in the local paper would not meet the criteria. For big-city towns where the local paper names a "best of" every year, a once-a-year mention would not be "significant." Tourist attractions are typically covered in comprehensive guidebooks, such coverage would be "routine." Likewise, schools with sports teams routinely get statewide coverage of game summaries. You get the idea.

It is important that this guideline exclude or at least explain that most local coverage does not meet WP:N's "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" definition of significant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• This would seem to be reliant upon the "Local Clause" of WP:N. That should be discussed over at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

After 6 months of being proposed, what is the conclusion?

Since this article was marked as a proposal, 6 months ago, there seems to have been no consensus on this article. Since editors don't like the {{failed}} or {{historical}} tag, I suggest the same tag as is being used on Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). travb (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll add the tag and see if anyone reverts it in the next week or two. If they do, that's a sign that it's not dormant. Of course, if someone reverts in after Easter, they should explain their reasoning and probably take steps to start the discussion over from scratch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The last substantial proposal on the talkpage was Jan 9, 2009. I've reverted that tag. DGG (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Check again. The last substantial edit above this section was my edit on January 4th and someone's reply. Before that, the last substantial edit was December 7th. As for the actual proposal, there was a minor but substantive tweak on January 12, but before then you have to go back to early December to see anything substantive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

After 6 months of being proposed, I'm ready to mark this as "Failed to reach consensus"

I'll wait at least a week to see if there's any interest in reviving this before marking it closed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur.  Sandstein  01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• As do I. Put a fork in this, it's done.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know about this proposal. I typed in WP:BUILDING hoping to see exactly what it led me too. Then I found it was a proposed guideline. I guess its too late to weigh in... Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If discussion restarts and things start moving, and those that objected before are notified and remain silent or better yet, start supporting a revised version, then that would be a good thing. As it stands though, if it's just you and the few existing supporters supporting, yeah, it won't change the outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The deed is done. If someone wants to start this process over, be my guest, but look at the article history and discussion before starting, there may be some things you can learn from them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your placement of the template. I personally would like to see this whole thing thrown away...it strikes me as unnecessary, and counterproductive as instruction creep. Cazort (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that two other proposals may better address this and a lot more. One is Wikipedia:Notability (local interests), the other, which is an essay that someone suggested could be policy/guideline, Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, both of that a close friend of mine wrote. Hellno2 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a fan of either proposal. Both seem (a) unnecessary (the insignificant articles given as examples in the arguments of why these proposals are needed, are always deleted by clear consensus without these additional guidelines--due to just common sense) (b) adding substantial guidelines/documentation, which is not good per WP:CREEP. (c) seem like they could be used to override WP:N and WP:RS to argue to delete noncontroversial topics which have received extensive coverage in highly reliable local sources but little or none in non-local ones. The only sort of addendum to WP:N I can imagine arguing for is to factor in the degree to which a subject relates to others--i.e. to eliminate orphaned articles and dead-ends. Cazort (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Restart of process

How does one get this process started again? I'd like to work with folks to look at an expansion of CSD A7 to cover buildings, and to do so we need a consensus on what a notable building is. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You win some, you lose some

I am patrolling a new page. It is called Stadionul Orăşenesc (Ovidiu). It is about a stadium in Romania. The article author has provided one citation, a link to a Romanian sports web page. The web page has a publication date, and the stadium actually is the subject of the web page, but the page doesn't have an author and I am not able to ascertain its significance/ reliability as a news source. So I type in WP:BUILDING to see if I can see some guidelines about what kinds of criteria I can use to assess the possible notability of this one. And I get this failed proposal. Very disappointing.

The purpose of the subject-specific notability guidelines is to help editors quickly assess whether the subject of a given article is likely to be notable. They are only "instruction creep" if they are set down as policy which then must be followed— which neither this nor any of the other subject-specific guidelines has ever aimed at. They are meant to be guidelines, not instructions. The best guidelines include examples of what is typically kept and what typically is not. This proposal has (had) such examples in it (and could have used several more). But years ago the conversation ended. And here I sit, looking at an article about a Romanian football stadium, and I don't have any sense of whether to mark it patrolled or nominate it for deletion. I have marked dozens and dozens of new pages as patrolled before. I have nominated almost as many for deletion. It isn't often I find myself searching for a guideline to help me get a sense of where the fenceposts are anymore. But no fenceposts for the notability of buildings, other than WP:N. I hate it when criteria are inherently vague, though I understand that much of what is on Wikipedia exists or gets deleted on the basis of such criteria. Some criteria are less vague than others, however. The guidelines over at WP:NFOOTY are used to circumvent WP:GNG on an hourly basis. I like the idea of a guideline that helps me decide what should NOT be included in the Wikipedia mainspace. Instead I am looking at a failed proposal. So it's my call then, eh? You know what's worse than instruction creep? Wikipedia becoming an encyclopedia of everything. I could choose not to patrol this article, but that's just passing the buck. I am going to mark it as patrolled. Feels wrong. No guidelines to help. And I just don't feel like arguing with a Romanian about the notability of one of his nations 40 notable "multi-purpose" football stadiums, never mind its 1,298 notable footballers (though compare this to the 22 notable marine biologists in the history of the entire world). KDS4444^Talk 21:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)