Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 20

Gama Prasad Agarwalla (1925-1989),was the producer of the film Assamese film "Piyali Phukan" which has the distinction of being the first Assamese film to bag a National Award i.e Certificate of Merit in the year 1955 by the Film Division under the Government of India.

Gama Prasad Agarwalla was born in Tezpur, Assam in 1925. He was a renowned name in the world of regional cinema in Assam as well as in India. He took film making as a hobby and was deeply involved in all his film projects. He setup Rup Jyoti Productions which was a production house for Assamese films and Rup Roshni Distributors which was a Distribution house for both Assamese and Hindi film. His efforts to bring Assamese cinema on a National stage were recognized when the Government of India awarded the film Piyoli Phukan with the Certificate of Merit in 1955. He was also awarded and honoured by the Government of Assam for his contribution to Assamese Cinema in the year 1988.

He produced or financed many Assamese films viz. Era Bator Sur, Puwati Nikhar Swopun etc. He also opened up many cinema halls in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam like Kamala Talkies Dhekiajuli, Kamala Talkies, Rangapara, Ganesh Talkies, Kharupetia. He was married to Bhanwri Devi. He was very popular among the residents of his home town, Tezpur in Assam. He died in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agarwalaav (talk • contribs) 10:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a few episodes of Timothy Goes to School tagged with Template:Notability. I'd put them all up for deletion, but doesn't there have to be a deletion review before mass-AFDing stuff like this? --Montchav (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the nutshell require secondary sources, but the article does not? Hobit (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's stated in the first section, that "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. --MASEM 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s kind of an awkward compromise. Generally, secondary sources are required. However, when you get to the fine print, you find there can be situations where you don’t need secondary sources because you are able to demonstrate notability by some other means. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that statement is wrong. Sources that say a subject is "worthy of notice" provide the most evidence that a subject is "worthy of notice." Coverage, by itself, does not indicate a subject is worthy of notice. I'm beginning to think this guideline should be renamed Wikipedia:Coverage. --Pixelface (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A source that says a subject is "worthy of notice" is almost certainly a secondary source, and therefore fits the description. Do you find many such sources? Such explicit claims of worthiness would be nice, but aren’t required, and I would wonder as to whether they are independent.

Yes, WP:N has become more explicit about coverage than about the poorly defined notion of “notability”, as it is more useful and fits better with focusing contributions on better sourcing, which is good for the product. No, moving to Wikipedia:Coverage would be a bad thing because “notability” is so firmly entrenched in our culture. If it were moved then the use of “notability” throughout the project would revert to being misused. “Coverage” is also prone to misuse. Many non notable things are well covered by non-impendent or non-secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to claim a subject is notable, that claim needs to be verifiable per policy. If editors want "coverage" to be the criteria for inclusion, fine. But coverage is not the same as notability. --Pixelface (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that’s right. Coverage is already required. All content must be attributable. Yes, coverage is not the same as notability, but some sorts of coverage (not all) are useful for verifiably demonstrating notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This guideline equates coverage with notability, but coverage is only coverage. Coverage is not hard evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• But please notice the nutshell isn't a summary of the actual article. The article doesn't require secondary sources, the nutshell does. That's a bad summary by definition. Hobit (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What articles or article types are exempt from falling under Wikipedia:Notability? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They're not exemptions, it's just that certain properties result in a default assumption of notability. For example, most geographic locations are assumed to be notable even if there isn't a specific source provided, since it's assumed the location will be covered by secondary sources like maps, government documents, local papers, etc. "List of TopicX" articles typically are viewed as sub-articles of TopicX - if TopicX is notable, the associated List article will be assumed to be notable too. Torc2 (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Subjects that are unlikely to be pushed by vested interests are generally unaffected by WP:N. Such subjects tend to be from the natural world or our distant history. Recent human creations, such as commercial products or theories need to demonstrate interest beyond that of the author or other beneficiaries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing stopping someone here from suggesting we add a Notability#Geographic section. It's likely that it's just not important enough for any warring over it. Perhaps THOR could be more specific in why he came here to ask his question? I'm sure there is a specific article he has in mind. Wjhonson (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I was spurred to ask from a specific article, it's something I've run across before and should have asked before this point.

If articles which have no evidence of notability are combined in a composite article (a list of, or similar), is the latter article then exempt from qualifying under WP:N? Frequently in article deletion discussions people !vote to merge into a "list of" or similar; but if the single article is not notable under Wikipedia standards, how does a collection of non-notable information then meet that same standard? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It does't. But we are a discursive democracy not a bureaucracy. Policy can change, in its details, and consensus can change. So after the great merge, you could then have a discussion on its talk page about possibly deleting it ! That's the nature of wikisociety.Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating the deletion of a given article at this juncture, but am tagging one with {{notability}}. I was rebuffed (read: reverted) though, and informed that "Such lists are the compromise to having scads of individual pages. Each entity on the list may not meet WP:N, but collectively they do". Is this standard/consensus valid? Does a collection of non-notable subjects build up enough notability-mass to reach criticality and then make the collection of them notable? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why assume that a whole cannot be more notable than the sum of its parts? Individual songs aren't typically notable, but albums typically are. Torc2 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But we don't take individual non-notable song articles and consolidate them into a single article List of songs from This Album. Whereas the album article itself (This Album) is notable on its own, and duly lists its contents. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same principle, just done in a different order. Parts that are individually not notable very well might be notable as a collection. Torc2 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not saying they can't be, but don't they still need evidence of that under Wikipedia:Notability? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be that the belief is that lacking further evidence, the group topic is by default notable while the individual topic by default isn't. That's not saying that evidence isn't necessary, just that there is some inconsistency with the way notability is handled, and the assumptions of notability might change between the two topics. Such is the case with songs vs. albums and (currently) episodes vs. series. The default assumption is that a song isn't individually notable unless and has to prove it is, yet an album by a notable group is assumed notable and simply doesn't list sources unless someone really makes an effort to show it's not. Torc2 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) You're still being a bit obtuse. Can you tell us what specific article you tagged? For example there might very well be notability for Famous Midgets as a list with bio snippets while each once may be non-notable. We really need to look at your specific case. I don't believe this is stated quite in policy, but we are also encouraged to use common sense in interpreting notability. Additionally, there is nothing stopping you from starting a new section for Notability for Lists.Wjhonson (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring up the article specifically (and was rather hoping nobody would dig through my contribs to find it) because I don't want to "be bringing in reinforcements to prove my point"; I just wanted some understanding or agreement before I pressed my point again.

I came across an AfD that was discussing an article lacking notability. The lack of notability wasn't denied or refuted (that I recall); but the majority of people were arguing to merge the content into the article Minor characters in CSI: Miami. I started thinking that the latter article was effectively a dumping ground for a collection of non-notable articles; and, in fact, couldn't find any evidence of notability or reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. So I tagged it with {{notability}} and {{primary sources}}. AnteaterZot (talk · contribs) quickly removed the notability tagging saying (as above): "Removing notability tag. Such lists are the compromise to having scads of individual pages. Each entity on the list may not meet WP:N, but collectively they do, at least for well-known shows." Since I wasn't aware of a point of criticality whereupon non-notable articles massed together became spontaneously notable w/o meeting the requirements of this guideline, I brought it here before pushing further. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Such lists which combine non-notable elements particularly for fictional works are generally acceptable, assuming that they are approached in the summary style method of breaking out discussion from notable topics. Now, arguably, that information along with List of CSI: Miami characters and most of the major characters with individual, non-notable articles (Horatio Caine) can be merged further into a single article to support CSI: Miami alone. (Some of this is what is discussed at WP:FICT). --MASEM 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NNC might also be appropriate in this discussion. Torc2 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that something contained in a list may not be notable as stand alone material, but is when contained in a list on the topic, does not mean it must not be sourced. verifiability is non-negotiable; everything requires sourcing. In practice, we often do dump material that is non-notable into a list without checking its verifiability, and that is a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiFur. --No signature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.228.166 (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

The guideline in a nutshell requests secondary sources to establish notability. While this may work on a large number of cases it is often not so helpful. I feel rewording is necessary.

For example an average person serving in the armed forces will have a secondary source covering his life. This does not make every serviceman notable. Also in some cases authors of books do not get secondary coverage of their biography for a while even if the book they wrote is popular and had critical review. And lastly in the case of certain topics such as articles on fiction related content the lack of secondary sources do not always mean the topic is non-notable.

Also in the case of WP:SPINOUTs and WP:STUBs this guideline seems to be being contradictory.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

SPINOUT and this guideline are not contradictory. Notability relates to a topic that may be comprised of an article and some spinoff ones. --MASEM 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I have a source that extensively covers a spesific topic. Say about a bird family. Am I banned from creating individual WP:SPINOUT articles for the individual species? Even if the source covers the family in great detail and not the individual species. Or how about history. The articles tend to get too long and are then chopped into smaller peices broken into arbitrary time periods. Does WP:N ban those? I think there needs to be a clarification on how WP:SPINOUT, WP:STUB and WP:N integrates together. -- Cat ^chi? 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of whatifs here, but lets assume that the bird family is what is notable, not individual birds, but you have a lot (excess of SIZE) of info on the family. Then I would expect that one could have a SPINOFF to one article to list off each bird in the family with brief information which may not be notable on its own (but within the notability of the topic, which is the bird family); there may be another SPINOFF for "Migratory patterns" of the bird family, if that's a large amount of info, or the like. If each individual bird, on the other hand, has their own notability, then it makes sense to make separate articles for each, and one to summarize the family.

For History, it makes complete sense that one may break it down into large, general periods agreed by the editor consensus; the selection of where to break the timelines should be based on some generally accepted secondary reference point, whether it's by century, age of man, or major wars/events. However, likely each section can stand on its own in terms of notability. --MASEM 13:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. I think I agree with you. I do feel that we should focus on the notability of the general topic. It makes little sense to confine articles to LONG WP:SIZEs over WP:N. Is this general statement in line with what you are saying? -- Cat ^chi? 15:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki shows the evident problem with the secondary source culture. -- Cat ^chi? 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bad example - it looks like it was pointedly put up for deletion (judging by the nomintator's previous actions), and even if not the case, there is the argument that the one person noted that there are secondary sources for MediaWiki, but they are not in the article yet, so it should have been tagged {{notability}} before being put up for AfD. --MASEM 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How could something so frequently used as a reason for deletion and probably used to justify more actions than at least half the policies on Wikipedia be called a guideline? Why even call it a guideline when it is being treated like a policy? Can anyone explain how this "guideline" has so much power? --No signature; I have an account, but I'm not going to expend the wasted effort to login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.228.166 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "not notable" have a long history of being used in deletion arguments. The words were also present in old versions of the deletion policy and WP:NOT, well before "Wikipedia:Notability" was first written. WP:N has come to define and constrain the usage of the previously poorly defined "not notable". I agree with you that WP:N is not like a guideline in any reasonable sense of the word, and that it is effectively policy, and is even possibly the most firmly enforced wikipedia "policy". I think that consensus for it being labelled "policy", which would see its enforcement increased, is lacking because WP:N should not be applied rigidly, and the "exception" and "common sense" caveats of the guideline tag are more appropriate than the policy tag, which states that "all users should follow" [the official policy]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest the page be moved to Wikipedia:Arguments that are frequently used in deletion discussions. It's a shame that this guideline is being treated like a policy by so many editors. When people say something is not worthy of notice, that's a personal opinion — nothing more. How that concept could ever be part of policy (or even a guideline) is beyond me. --Pixelface (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I have come to the opinion that tying the use of "notability" to sourcing criteria is good for the product. If the guideline were moved, then the word would still get used, and the problem would only be worse. I argued that WP:N should be couched as an essay, as opinion, not a rule, as existing rules suffice (WP:V and WP:NOR), but it became clear that consensus is against this.

Can you give an example of editors using WP:N like a policy in a way that produces bad results? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tying the term "notability" to the presence of sources (and not whether those sources say a topic is "notable") seems to me to violate the policy on verifiability and no original research. I can give an example of editors using WP:N like policy that produces bad results: these two arbitration cases.[1][2]. --Pixelface (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. I find it difficult to make any use of them because mediation is about conduct, not content, and WP:N is about content, not conduct. The mediation made/looks like making no useful resolutions. I see a motherhood style remedy at the end of the first, and absolutely no implication of the status of WP:N. Perhaps you could help point me to the evidence that WP:N itself is causing problems.

In my opinion, relating to content issues, it is my opinion that it is all covered by a combination of guidelines WP:N and WP:WAF (in additions to policies, whose application doesn’t seem contentious), and it would be better left covered without other guidelines. There are too many prescriptive guidelines, interconnecting, interwoven, sometime conflicting and sporadically considered, let alone applied. Note however, that I consider WP:N and WP:WAF to be desirable goals, and not tests to be enforced by deletion, per se.

As for your suggestion that WP:N violates WP:V or WP:NOR, I don’t see it. I see WP:N as deriving very much from WP:V and especially WP:NOR, and if anything, going beyond the policies, but only with the limitation that WP:N applies to whole articles(“subjects”), not to content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What I think Pixelface is stating is that because we "assume" a topic is notable because sources exist for a topic, instead of finding a source that explicitly states that a topic is notable, then because we make that distinction, we are introducing OR/POV into the process. However, I strongly disagree with this. WP's notability guidelines are not meant to define if a topic is standard-dictionary-defined "notable", but to define sufficient support that makes a topic worthy of inclusion in WP; this definition, we are free to decide ourselves, and we have picked In otherwords, we use "notability" but this is not the most exact word for what we define, maybe "Inclusionability" is a better term (despite being nonsense). If someone wanted to say that a topic was "notable" (per standard dictionary) they would still need a source that says this, but we are saying that we only need the existance of sources for a topic to be included. --MASEM 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the current standard minimises the need for original interpretation. Fundamentally, we are trying to judge whether a topic is "worthy of note", and the standard we currently use is whether others have deemed it worthy of note. We make no personal judgments about the topic or the treatment that various sources have given it; we just look at whether others have considered the topic important enough to write about. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this introduces a bias towards topics that academic in nature (and a bias against topics that aren't). Your statement includes one major assumption, which might even be classified as a fallacy: if it's important, it will be written about in a reliable source. One thing gnawing at me is how the WP:V and WP:NOT policies even got interpreted into meaning a topic had to be "notable" in the vague sense it is used here. Torc2 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the assumption has certain limitations, but I don't know that a better proxy for noteworthiness exists. Many others have been proposed and considered, but they have all involved greater degrees of ambiguity or subjectivity. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but it seems to me that since we have a template for AfD, why not create a template that users can put into a discussion page that would cover the following: "Presumed" "Significant coverage" "Reliable" "Sources"

This way, a lot of personal attacks could be avoided in discussion pages. Just a thought.Runnynose47 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but I fear such a template would result in people trying to delete pages that didn't have each section filled in. I wouldn't be opposed to altering the {{notability}} tag so that it prods the tagger to discuss what the specific shortcomings are in the talk page. Actually, that could stand to be done for a couple of our more common tags. Torc2 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm right there with you, but have no idea about the execution. I am fairly new, and am not sure if this is the proper forum to tout this, but it does seem that standardizing the counterpoints to AfD's would cut down on the headache factor some of the better editor seem to get arguing this and other points.Runnynose47 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand how to fill in these templates. Can you provide more info. For example, does one insert a "subject" into [expert-subject], and how do you know what subject to use? The explanations on this page are a bit cursory. In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What are "these templates"? Are you referring to {{Expert-subject}}? If so, the template's name is "Expert-subject" so the name never changes. Many templates like this take one or more parameters. These are fulfilled by placing a pipe ("|") followed by whatever the template parameter calls for. For this template, the parameter is the subject of the WikProject you think might best be situated to provide an expert on the subject. So say you were tagging a geology stub with this template; you can guess that there is a geology WikiProject so the template with the parameter would be {{Expert-subject|Geology}}. Some might not be so easy to guess they exist so you would attempt to locate a good Wikiproject candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, which lists all WikiProjects. Most template parameters are easier, usually asking for the name of the relevant article the tag is associated with, the date you are placing the template, and so on. None of this has anything much to do with notability, which is where we are, so am I completely missing the boat with regard to your question?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject of notability has come up in discussing merging at Template talk:SubArticle. Input on whether a parent article can provide notability for its 'subarticles' would be appreciated. Richard001 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not issue a formal WP:RFC? Also, the talk pages (and their archives) at WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE are full of thousands of words on this topic. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worth discussing the possibility of changing non-notability deletion policies to include the step of transplanting information not suitable for wikipedia to a suitable wiki if it exists. One could argue that outright deletion is little better than book burning. . .

I argue only for the preservation of information. . . --Carterhawk (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I know wikipedia is the nerd's revenge on real world. But somebody, Please! Please! be a human somebody (and not a wikipedia editor nutcase) Please! check if this so-called guideline meets the basic requirements for logical coherence? I know wikipedia is the wisdom of the crowds, but still hoping for some sanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.31.228 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some actual point to make regarding the logical coherence of the attached page? If so, please state it. Your post has no substance and appears to be a pretextual device to spew ad hominems.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of notability being used to bypass WP:NOT#NEWS, especially in articles concerning living people. Can we make sure this is explicitly discouraged? Will ^(talk) 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, notability trumps WP:NOT#NEWS. In the same way that notability isn't temporary, neither is it timebound. Once the article crosses the line, it's notable, even if it's also news. --SSBohio 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline. NOT is a policy. By normal practice and definition, that means notability takes a back seat to "What Wikipedia is not" and other policies. Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not notability is a policy, the community seems to treat it as such. Leaving the semantic question aside, however, WP:NOT#NEWS is fairly specific, being a particular case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically, it says that Wikipedia articles are not simply ... news reports. An article that meets the standard of notability is generally more than a simple news report and/or an indiscriminate collection of information. In that way, notability trumps NOT#NEWS, whatever terminology is used to refer to each concept. --SSBohio 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a couple examples about what prompted this. WP:NOT#NEWS is tricky, and is ambiguous to the point of being almost useless, but let's parse it: Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. I interpret that as meaning we shouldn't have articles like The accident at the corner of Wilkinson and MLK at 4:35AM, Tuesday, February 26, 2008 or The day GOOG reached $225 a share - trivial events that really don't have any lasting impact. Just about everything was once "news"; this forbids articles about things that never went beyond mundane "news reports." I think opinions on where the threshold for what meets this criterion is going to vary pretty wildly. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. This is the tricky one. If an individual is only notable for a single event, yeah, they belong in the article about that event. The problem I see here is: What if the event was only the genesis of their notability, and they're recognized beyond that now? Take for example, Jared Fogle. Anybody know this guy for anything he did aside from the Subway Sandwich ads? Not really. He is asked about his weight loss, but that's not what got him noticed. Should he be merged with Subway (restaurant)? No way. The information about him is valid and would dominate the Subway article. Yet at the same time Smiling Bob was redirected to Enzyte in 2005, and (rightly) nobody's complained about it.

That was all a long way of saying I don't have a good answer for you. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the proposal I made here may be relevant to Notability. I would appreciate comments. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentism is a balance to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary and some awareness of that should inform the section. The recent link to Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time is also inappropriate as that essay confuses Verifiability with notability. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia:Recentism, an essay, balance Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, a guideline? Also, I don't see how Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time is inappropriate; WP:N and WP:V work in conjunction, not independently. I don't see anything inappropriate or misleading in that essay. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had my article deleted four times, so i need help on how to present it to Wikipedias standard.

It is a true crime story, Marie Greening Zidan is my mother,

REGARDS

Bluepetals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepetals (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Add reliable third-party sources to your article, which is widely regarded as a claim to notability. Google seems to have some for Marie Greening Zidan, but I am not sure whether what you want to write would pass WP:NOT#NEWS (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - News reports). There are also potential WP:ONEEVENT issues (Articles about people notable only for one event). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest changing the name of the article from "Marie Greening Zidan" to something like "Marie Greening Zidan murder case". This could resolve some notability issues and concerns.

You can also include there info about public impact of the case, e.g. attempts to change some aspects of criminal law in Australia, etc. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a subpage of your user page and drafting the article there. You can then ask people to suggest changes that would help make it less likely to be deleted. Once you make these suggested changes, the article can be easily moved into the "main" part of Wikipedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been hearing reports from a web forum I go to, that this and certain other Wikipedia rulings often get changed by some people (for instance, certain people on many webcomics) particularly right after a failed AfD, to attempt to alter the results. Personally, I don't care if the rules are too light, or too harsh, so long as they can be consistent, and not changed at a whim, or a grudge. It is for this reason that I move some consistently agreed upon notion of what notability be declared, after which even if it is later found too harsh, it should regardless be either sprotect or protect tagged. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding! Consistency? We can't even decide what language to write in ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The <span id="CONTENT" /> tag does not work correctly on my browser. Seems to me that "CONTENT" is reserved, or mixes with the table of contents. I propose to change it to, say <span id="NCONTENT" /> if there are no objections. Oceanh (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

How is it done? Say there's a debate over whether or not a topic is notable. One article covers all the information in the article, but one source (arguably) isn't sufficient to establish notability. So editors go out and find six or seven other articles that establish notability, but can't really be cited because they don't offer anything new to the article (or, say, they're from a major paper and behind a paywall). How are those supposed to be included in the article, and is there even a point to including them? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is very abstract. Do you have an example? Here is a quick response:

There is no problem with providing multiple citations for the one piece of information. If the subject is of questionable notability, then some citable claims of demonstrable notability should be made. These brief claims should be cited to one or more sources that demonstrate notability as per WP:N. I think that these claims belong in the lead. In the body of the article you will repeat the lead content in more detail, but this time citing it to your single, reliable, but perhaps not independent, source. I don’t agree that a source behind a paywall is not citable. It only needs to be accessible. All else being equal, a more accessible source is preferable, but if a difficult source is what you have, then so be it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joe. There is no reason why we shouldn't cite redundant sources as long as they aren't mere reprints of the same article. I typically see two separate reference sections used together in better articles: (1) inline footnotes commonly titled "Notes" and (2) a bibliography section commonly titled "References". It seems that redundant sources should go into the bibliography section so we don't frequently end up with multiple footnotes to the same passage. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that cited sources be freely available on the internet. Anything that was printed in a major newspaper is fine, regardless whether it is free on the paper's website. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, take for example an article about a musical group. The notability of that group is challenged and the article is brought to AfD. In AfD, editors are able to provide numerous live reviews of the band. None of these reviews would serve any function being cited within the article and would provide no new information, yet without them, notability is not established. Similar situations are possible for other topics, but we can start with that. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are several live reviews from noteworthy sources (the free local weekly arts rag shouldn't count, for example), there should be material to add to the article. What are the fans like at a show? Do they just riff out the album material or are they jam orientated (and if so, in what way)? What's the quality of their live performance? Do they just play the music or is there a lot of banter? Do they have any unique or interesting props, media, etc used in their live shows? Have their shows generated any controversy or complaints? These are the kinds of questions that reviews of live shows often answer. I just have a difficult time believing that several reputable sources could review a live act and not add anything interesting or of note to the available material. Vassyana (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I kind of get Torc's point though. If you have a number of reviews like that, what are you going to do with them? If you give a show-by-show account of the band's performance ("1/1/07 show: X said Y. 6/2/07 show: A said B. 8/14/07 show: 3 said 4."), other editors will complain that that is "what Wikipedia is not." If you try to draw broader conclusions about what the band's live performances are like, other editors will complain about improper synthesis and OR. So maybe you have one article that gives an overview of the band's work (sourced synthesis) and a number of reviews of specific shows -- unless something really noteworthy happened at a particular show, there's really not much you can properly use the other reviews for that the overview article isn't a preferable source for, and if the only source you put in the Wikipedia article is the overview article, people will point out that the article lacks sources (plural) and the subject therefore must not be notable. Kind of a catch-22. PubliusFL (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think that if the reviews provide nothing useful or new for an article, it is questionable whether or not they actually provide the substantive coverage required for notability. However, in the absence of actual examples, I am left to draw assumptions based on general concepts and trends. Vassyana (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you just say something like "In March 2008 X toured Berlin<ref1>, Paris<ref2>, London<ref3>, Tokyo<ref4> and Beijing<ref5>." in the article? For a minor local band, if all you can say is "Y has played on dance evenings at High Scool A<ref1>, High Scool B<ref2>, High Scool C<ref3>" it is questionable whether the sources add substantially to the band's notability. Oceanh (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

That about sums it up. PubliusFL (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I ran across Zen Center of Syracuse and put a speedy deletion tag on it for failure to make any claims of notability. The original creator of the article put a hangon tag on the article and claims in the article's Talk page that WikiProject Buddhism is planning on creating an article on every temple in the world. That needs to be nipped in the bud. Every temple in the world is no more notable than every Christian church or every mosque in the world. Just existence isn't notability. How do we stop this before it spreads? Corvus cornix_talk 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does wikipedia include a directory of every place of worship. Most people say no, wikipedia only covers things already covered. Has anyone ever written about about every temple? If yes, then they can write an article, and list every temple. If no, then is someone going to do original research in assembling data on every temple? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You would probably be interested in the deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Zen_centers_in_the_United_States. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting. WP:N and WP:NOT are important constraints that keep the project focused on quality, but I am concerned by how easily newcomers content gets deleted because they haven’t done it quite right. In this case, I can see a clear example of content development that needs guidance, not deletion. I support the guideline/policy, but not the practice that violation requires deletion.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Following the publication of a story about Wikipedia in today's issue of The Economist, a discussion started on the English language Wikipedia mailing list about notability. One reply said "We don't _need_ notability, or anything like it. Our other existing policies would suffice to keep the actual "crap" out."[3] I think it would be constructive for interested editors to discuss here the merits or otherwise of this assertion, and to gauge if there is any consensus to either upgrade the concept of notability into actual policy, or to replace it with some other subjective measure. Catchpole (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a not very meaningful concept, and all the definitions reduce to "what should be in the encyclopedia." what we need to discuss is not how to word a notability guideline, but rather the various views of what should be in the encyclopedia. But the reason we have avoided doing this is that there is really not the least consensus here, and it has always seemed more practical to go on with pretending that the fundamental differences separating us did not really exists, or could be accommodated by clever wording. so before deciding to expose the lack of agreement, be careful! It can not be predicted where this will end. It could possibly end in the conclusion we do not have enough agreement to have a common project. DGG (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit cynical? Possibly true. DGG, what do you think should be done with WP:N? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Importance" is a subjective measure; "presence of coverage in reliable sources" is (mostly) not. The fact that the term "notability" is misused in deletion discussions is not a fault of the concept itself, but rather of individual users. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Presence of coverage in reliable sources" is also subjective - what is a reliable source? What is coverage? Pretending it is not is in my opinion contributing to the misuse in AFD and other venues. Catchpole (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Coverage" can be problematic in many situations... there was a discussion at the radio project a while back regarding notability for individual stations. One real issue is the fact that, while a station is in all likelihood notable, there is very little chance it will get much in the way of coverage. Self-promotion doesn't count, other stations won't promote their rivals, and media concentration often extends this problem across television and print sources. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One can envision Notability as an extension of verifiability (in fact, verifiability includes a small statement of notability: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.); where notability is somewhat stronger in that we just don't require sources, but sources that provide significant coverage of that work, so that we prevent a trivial reference from being the sole source for a large article on a topic. But there is also the need for common sense here as well, which is why I feel notability should be present, but never more stronger than a guideline; the example that Ckatz provides of broadcasting stations is a case where my gut feeling, applying to all other topics we cover on WP, that these are notable despite the lack of third-party sources. I think a lot of this recent inclusionism/deletionism has led to large amounts of wikilaywering over specific wordings of policies and guidelines, preventing people from stepping back and saying "Ok, what's the spirit of what this policies and guidelines are aiming me towards?" That is what I see the notability guideline trying to do; it is not a smackdown for topics lacking secondary sources, but instead outlines the most generally accepted case for notability, and encourages that other cases may exist, but should always be evaluated case-by-case, allowing for flexibility if that would allow the inclusion of topics to make the encyclopedia better. So while I partially agree that WP:N could be stricken from the books, putting the weight on WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO to handle what topics are covered, I think doing so would be very harmful in the long run. --MASEM 13:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in a way, I tend to think notability and it's sprawling subguidelines are harmful in the sense that they are often used to short-circuit common sense and rational debate on both sides. On one side, you have the main notability policy being used to justify a "it exists" rationale (after all, there are sources) and the subguidelines being used to circumvent sourcing requirements (they're a "pro" athlete, this book won X award, etc). On the other side, you have people arguing against (what appear to me as) clearly notable topics (such as widely-cited academics, historical landmarks, etc). I personally believe that the "essence" of notability is ensuring that the topics we cover are appropriate and have enough available sources to craft complete (if occasionally short) articles, following the content-orientated portions of notability's "mother" WP:NOT. In the absence of such guidelines, it would boil down to conflict opinions about what is "appropriate", "complete" and/or "encyclopedic". However, it would be better (in my eyes) to have debates about such topics, than the current debates that rage depending on the language of the notability guidelines (which, to me, largely exclude real discussion of the principles and reasoning involved). Just some thoughts. You're welcome to take them or leave them. Vassyana (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• what should be done with WP:N is to discuss the various factors that might be considered as making for notability. 2RS is a very crude approximation. The first thing I would say is that importance in a field by reputation, size, or any clear attribute, is notability, and that for things where it is relevant, so is popularity. and fame certainly. I'd replace sentence 2 with something to that effect. DGG (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • I think I agree with you. I think that your view fits with my opinion that the notability test should require coverage in “reputable”, not “reliable” sources. Many examples of reliable sources (phone books, court records, annual reports) don’t demonstrate notability, and all content is already required by WP:V to be attributable to a reliable source. How would you verifiably measure popularity or fame, if not by coverage in secondary sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • What makes 2RS very useful is that it take out a lot of editor bias from determining notability. What a group of editors strongly involved with a project may determine to be notable due to importance may not be notable for those uninvolved. Providing secondary sourcing helps to remove that issue. This is not to say that, if for certain areas, that importance, popularity, or other aspects can be used as a likelihood for notability, and that information can easily lead to a notable article by the inclusion of reliable sources - aka the various sub-notability and project-specific notability guidelines like WP:MUSIC. Because of the rather large push between inclusionists and deletionist, we still want the most common and acceptable case to be reliable sourcing, as this should provide a "no questions asked" standard for all articles. --MASEM 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Cacharoth's original question, I think notability is overall a very good thing to have around. I could write an article about anyone who has had an obituary in the newspaper that passes V, NPOV, NOR, and NOT (V doesn't say the published third-party sources should be significant, only that they must exist). What keeps it out? Notability. (If you think such things should be included, well...I don't know what to say.) That alone should show that the core policies, while admirable and important, are not sufficient to keep out garbage articles. This being said, I agree with Cacharoth that the guidelines are too subjective. We need a less squishy definition of "significant coverage" (currently defined as "Whatever I think is significant"), along with an explicit note that two thin sources do not meet the multiple sourcing requirement, and a removal of the sub-guidelines (it matters only can you substantially source it or not, not if they've had a trip across the country in the band van or if they made X gazillion pornos or if it sold X copies or if it was released by a band which in itself is sourceable or if they play on a professional team or...). The sub-notability guidelines are second-guessing sources, and we don't do that. If the sources decide "It's not important, don't write (much) about it", we shrug and follow their lead. Period. We don't give more weight to something than they do. If they decide it is important enough to write about, and the subject otherwise passes the core content policies, we do write about it, period, even if it seems silly. The main thing is, we shouldn't be making the decision ourselves. Reliable sources should decide to write or not write, we should follow their lead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I saw this:

"However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources. "

So then this raises the question of what exactly constitutes evidence for notability. What, exactly, does that? Why no guidelines about that, just "examples"? mike4ty4 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "what exactly constitutes evidence for notability", it is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As for the footnote that you quoted, I have changed the word "information" to "coverage" -- perhaps that was the source of confusion... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so those sources would not qualify because the coverage they present is not significant, it is trivial coverage. But if it was not significant to begin with, then how could the presumption of notability that ultimately fails have been made in the first place? mike4ty4 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now what you mean. I have reworded the footnote in an effort to separate the second sentence, regarding the significance of coverage, from the statement about an initial presumption of notability. Does that change clarify the meaning? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be prepared to create a Wikiproject Television-specific guideline, or possible a high-level subguideline for notability, based on recent discussion. In WP:N, we have this statement: A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right. Now, when I look through the accepted nondisputed subguidelines, all of them in the end come back to say that "significant coverage in secondary courses" is still required, even given the "likely to be notable" cases that they list (eg album release by a major notable artist/band in WP:MUSIC).

Should it be the case that a notability subguideline or project-specific guideline remove the need for secondary sources? I know there are editors that would like to go this direction for television-specific articles like episodes, but I fear that if we took it that way, then what would happen is that other editors may bypass the project-specific guideline and jump right back to WP:N, and we're back at the recent ArbCom case again.

So the question I ask is two-fold: is, for purposes of being a guideline, the "significant coverage in secondary sources" a non-negotiable aspect of any subguidelines, and if so, should we reflect this in the language currently in WP:N? --MASEM 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, WP:N defines the minimum requirements which all subguidelines / articles have to follow (a reasonable and so far the only exception has been made for all towns c.s.). What subguidelines can do is a) put higher standards than WP:N (e.g. for not elected politicians), and b) clarify WP:N for specific cases, e.g. saying that in general, an album by a notable artist is supposed to meet WP:N (because in general, all albums by notable artists receive reviews in the press). Notability subguidelines which set lower standards (willingly or inadvertently) than the WP:N guideline should in such cases be ignored. So yes, it is a non-negotiable aspect, and the text should be clarified to reflect this. Fram (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Side question: do we have a documented discussion of why we allow all town articles regardless of notability? The argument that "We have non-notable articles on every town in a country, so why not have nonnotable articles for X?" keeps coming up in other discussions I have and while I knew there was a leeway for towns, I wasn't sure of the exact reason. --MASEM 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the rationale for keeping articles on towns is that, as human settlements, they are virtually guaranteed to be notable (there is almost certainly non-trivial coverage of them in reliable sources), even if the article does not currently reflect that. That said, articles about neighbourhoods and other subdivisions of settlements have been redirected and/or deleted due to lack of proof of notability. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have often commented in the past, I have yet to encounter an example of a notable topic where sufficient sources are burdensome/difficult to acquire, even under a strict interpretation of notability. Cities most certainly have endless reams of sources about their history, notable people, etc. Even small towns get extensive mentions in accessible regional history works and news media. Proper referencing always requires a bit of time and effort, and the lack of immediately available sources without making a trek to the local historical society or library does not indicate a true lack of accessible references. Regarding mountains and other natural geographic features, there are numerous travel guides, nature guides, geographical studies and so on that cover such things in some depth. However, this assumption of sources (and the concurrent assumption of notability) leaves many such "assumed to be notable" articles left in eternal crapitude. Attempts to force reasonable sourcing and proper demonstration of notability on such articles is often seen as "disruptive" and "counter to established consensus". The problem lies in how to encourage the sourcing of such topics in the (current) absence of any real threat to the article and its content. Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I added this language to the intro: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." I think coverage is one way of suggesting a topic is notable, but it's certainly not the only way. Many subjects are considered notable even if the article doesn't contain significant coverage — cities and mountains for example. This guideline should maybe say, "If significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is present in an article, editors are more likely to consider the subject notable."

I think the "Notability requires objective evidence" section is misleading. It says "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." That in my opinion is an argument unsupported by the sources — also known as original research. WP:N says "The topic of an article should be notable." The only way to show that a topic is notable according to policy is to cite a reliable source who explicitly says the topic is notable. Unless you quote a reliable source saying something is "notable", the question of notability comes down to personal editor opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That would only be relevant if we stated in the article that "According to X, the topic is notable". Since we don't, and since Notability is only a project guideline for inclusion/exclusion, I don't think that's a concern. Also, this issue has been discussed previously here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The requirement that a subject be notable can, if needs be, be a behind the scenes requirement. If the notability claim is not asserted in mainspace, it is not necessarily subject to WP:NOR. Also, note that a blind, absolute enforcement of WP:NOR leads to absurdities. There is some original research or synthesis to be found in all editorial actions. At an extreme, even if you were baldly copying from sources, someone could try say you are violating WP:NOR through your choice of sources to copy from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What we need sources for is article content. That's the meaning of V, which is very appropriately policy. That the sources for the content have to be objective and balanced, is the meaning of NOR, also appropriately core policy. Without those standards for content, we dont have an encyclopedia. But neither of them says anything about notability. any way of demonstrating notability is acceptable. (more exactly, whatever way of demonstrating whatever it is we decide we mean by notability is acceptable). we still need reliable content to write the article, but that's a separate issue. If we have no reliable content, it's an empty article and should be deleted, notable or not. "Notabibility requires appropriate evidence" would be a better way of putting it than "objective" . ""Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." " is one way of demonstrating notability--just one way. DGG (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"significant coverage in secondary sources" is not “just one way”, it is a very good way. I don’t remember anyone disagreeing with this way as being a very good way. The problem is with exceptions that require another way, and the lack of description about what those other ways are. “Notability requires appropriate evidence” says nothing more that “Notability requires evidence”. Is ghits evidence? Can we talk about specific examples where notability gets contested and where coverage in secondary sources is not the best way to demonstrate notability? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Had a recent discussion with another user regarding the notability of a particular politician, so for future reference I would like to try and establish consensus on a couple of the issues raised.

Firstly, would a city like Buffalo, New York, with 295,000 residents, qualify as a "major metropolitan city" or not? Secondly, would a failed candidate for the US Congress qualify as notable?

The issue concerns an article about a Buffalo city councillor who once stood unsuccessfully for Congress. Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not for a wikipedian to decide whether Buffalo, New York is a "major metropolitan city". You need to find reliable/reputable sources (at least one) that says it. Editorial decision is then required on the question of whether we want to mention it, or in deciding what to do if different sources say different things (is there a controversy, or is one more reliable than the other).

A failed candidate for the US Congress qualify as notable if you can find sources that discuss him (not merely mention him). Presumably, you would like to find sources that discuss him in terms of his candidacy, and/or his failed candidacy. Especially good would be sources that discuss his candidacy in terms of some wider context. Beware of non-independent sources. These may be reliable sources for the facts, but they will have a systematic bias and we don’t consider them to demonstrate sufficient notability. I would start by looking in the editorial section of the major newspapers of the district. Major libraries keep newspapers in one form or another. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the article creator, candidates for Congress all end up with an article on them while they are running, and those articles are not deleted after they fail to win, so any candidate for Congress by extension qualifies as notable. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For use as a criterion of notability, we can form our own levels of significance. Everything larger than a population of approximately 500 has probably been called a major city in its local newspaper :) I consider a reasonable cutoff at somewhere between 100,000 (259 US cities) and 500,000. (33 cities). Using 250,000 has 69 cities, which might make sense as an intermediate compromise. See List of United States cities by population for which ones would be included. (personally, as a new Yorker, i'd accept nothing much less as worth the trouble, but that's my own prejudice. When I saw SF first from the airplane, it looked like a nice small city)

As for losing candidates, I have tried in the past to argue that losing candidates from major parties for national offices are notable, but this has not yet been accepted. I think the losing dem/Rep candidate for H of R is is about equivalently notable as someone in the state . But it was clear that this was not going to be generally accepted. i continue to think its a good idea, if anyone wants to pursue it. DGG (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I don't think I personally would be prepared to describe a city of 300,000 as a "major metropolitan city" - a major regional city maybe. Although it might also depend on the country's overall population I guess. I think SmokeyJoe's comment probably makes the most sense - if you can't find a reputable independent source or sources describing the city in such terms, then it doesn't qualify.

As for the second point, it seems to me there are a lot of candidates who stand for office, some of them with no hope at all of ever being elected, should they all get their own article? Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a question that has come up in one or two of the deletion debates in which I have participated here, where it's been argued that the section means "Once notable, always notable." Indeed, this is pretty much what the first paragraph states. However, this has been taken to mean that if a topic receives just a brief flurry of media attention, then it becomes notable and stays notable -- in contradiction to the second paragraph. I've flagged this as a self contradiction which will need to be clarified. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a contradiction, since "a brief flurry of media attention" is generally not enough to state that a topic is notable. That said, there can be and are disagreements about what constitutes a "brief" period of coverage, but that is a question of genuine disagreement caused by (deliberate) ambiguity in the guideline rather than an actual contradiction. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I've seen debates where the interpretation "once notable, always notable" has been applied to subjects that only have two or three news reports surrounding a single event based on an apparent misunderstanding of the section. I've reworded it slightly to hopefully make it a bit clearer. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where the only independent sources are “two or three news reports”, I’d suggest drawing attention to the probable fact that the “news reports” are not secondary sources and thus do not normally serve to demonstrate notability. Newspapers like to report everything, factually, with immediacy, and without bias. Such reports are repetition of fact, and thus are primary source material. To demonstrate sufficient notability, we’d prefer to see commentary about the event, not just the facts of the event. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the news article is, in its entirety, a reprint of a press release, it is _always_ a secondary source. That's been the consensus on Wikipedia for years. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among whom? There has been a very long debate at NOR about what secondary sources are, and the main conclusion that can be drawn from it is that there are several different schools of thought about it. Many people learned in school that newspaper reports are primary sources, because they lack sufficient distance from the event to give an analysis of it (SmokeyJoe's comment may reflect this sort of thought). Of course many Wikipedia articles do rely on newspaper articles as their main sources, but it would be clearer overall if we avoid the phrase "secondary source" when referring to them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's been the rule on Wikipedia pretty much forever. While there was a debate about whether data in scientific journals might really be a primary source, and I suppose a newspaper writing an article about itself ( i.e. its masthead, or if it issues a retraction ) could be a primary source, a newspaper article is almost certainly a "secondary source" by our standards. It doesn't matter whether it has a comprehensive or trivial analysis of the events it reported on, it's still a secondary source, and can be used to demonstrate notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What if the article contains no analysis, comprehensive, trivial or otherwise, of the events it reported on? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Carl, I think it is important to use the term “secondary source” in relation to newspapers, but correctly, because newspaper sources are frequently, and appropriately, used to justify article inclusion. The complication is that newspapers usually contain both primary source material and secondary source material. The reports (found in the first and early pages) are usually primary source material, the editorials and features are usually secondary source material. We don’t want to give the impression that sources found in newspapers are not suitable sources. As a rule of thumb, I’d suggest that anything called a “report” is not suitable per se for demonstrating sufficient notability to justify a wikipedia article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many misconceptions about primary and secondary sources, and Squidfryerchef's is not unusual. I’m glad we can agree that a verbatim reprint of a press release is not a secondary source. Can you now explain how any verbatim reprint of any primary source can be said to be a secondary source? Can you then explain how any mere summary of any primary source can be said to be a secondary source?

Can you produce any reliable source supporting your assertion? Can you point to any evidence of your alluded-to consensus? Secondary source doesn’t support your position. Neither does WP:PSTS.

There is no widespread accepted line for separating primary sources from secondary sources, but it is not hard to show clear examples of each kind. A simple news report is primary source. See, for example, CNN.com’s current top “latest news” is Three missing after New York City crane collapse.

It presents hard facts, without editorial commentary or analysis. Reading the article, it is as if you the reader are at the scene, seeing things first hand. There are quotations of what people said, but this is not editorial commentary, it is a factual reporting of what people said. The whole article is doing nothing but the verbatim repeating of primary source materials – observations, facts and quotations.

For the article to be judged to be secondary source material, there would need to be some appreciable transformation of primary source material. This can be done in ways such as commentary, analysis, comparison, altered perspective. The CNN article makes no comment. Was this a bad accident? A typical accident? A tragic accident? A funny accident? There is no analysis. The article doesn’t tell you why it might have happened? News reports do not do this deliberately because to do so means that their reports are not “unbiased and factual”. If you want opinion, commentary, analysis or perspective, you turn to the editorial section, or wait a few days for stories that are not framed in a “this just happened right now” perspective.

This is relevant to WP:N because the CNN article does not, in itself, show that anybody cares. It reads like a simple record of an event, made at the time of the event. Wikipedia does not cover the subject of every news report.

Perhaps you’d like to argue that the crane crash is sufficiently notable because it was run by a national news service, or due to measures of loss of life or loss of capital. You could, but these are not arguments based upon the CNN story being a secondary source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That opinion of what constitutes a secondary source does not match what the rest of Wikipedia uses. The CNN report you described is a fine example of a secondary source. It is national news and together with other reports may be used to argue notability. If you want to propose a new category of "super-secondary sources" or "commentary sources" using the above definition then go for it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you could voice your disagreement with reference to evidence. Where can I read more on your understanding of “secondary source”. Is it at secondary source or its references, some other external source, or at WP:PSTS (Wikipedia policy)? Can you show me somewhere on wikipedia where something like the CNN report has been explicitly accepted as a “secondary source”? In terms of WP:N, do you not see that the CNN news report (“together with other reports”) is excluded by: “it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.” --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the CNN news report would be a secondary source. The primary sources would be tapes of 911 calls and transcripts of police radio chatter. Something typed up in a newsroom summarizing multiple reports of an emergency is a secondary source. As far as examples of news reports not being accepted as secondary sources on Wikipedia, I've never heard of a news report from the mainstream media _not_ being accepted as a secondary source. About notability, I agree that a single news report does not automatically confer notability, but a collection of several may be used to argue for notability (necessary but not sufficient conditions). FWIW, I feel that the crane crash is notable because it is likely to be cited as a case study in the construction business. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, there are two aspects that any source can be categorized into. The first is the primary, secondary, or tertiary nature of the work; this describes, based on the topic being covered, how much analysis is being done on the work. The second aspect is the "party" or how many people are removed from the original event. For a crime for example, 911 calls and police reports would be first-party sources, while CNN would be a third-party source; if you observed the event and then wrote it up , that would be the second-party source, which pretty much are strictly forbidden since that implies original research. Thus, in the case of the reporting recent news event, probably anything that is reported in the first 24hrs after the event is a third-party, primary source, since they are simply stating facts but make little attempt at verifiable conclusions. Once they investigate a bit more, then their reporting becomes third-party, secondary sources. Mind you, this latter step may never occur, or maybe investigations are done and it is as run of the mill as they say it was. For example, not every tornado strike, despite causing damage and possibly lives, all likely reported in both local and national news, is necessarily notable, because, well, as an ex-Midwestern, they just happen. However, certain tornado-related events are notable, typically due to the number and size of them, which cause a much larger path of damage, including post-analysis of how the tornadoes hit, conditions that led to them, and things that may or may not helped to prevent damage; these are listed at List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Similarly, not every sharp drop or rise in the stock market is notable despite stock analyses being reported at the end of the day - it's those that make a long term effect that get further detailed and analyzed, resulting in a notable stock event. In both cases, the delineation between a non-notable to a notable event is the predominance of third-party secondary sources that are generated some time, but not immediately, after the event that analysis why and what it has impacted. Once an event's coverage has crosses that point, then it no longer it temporary notability (aka newsworthiness) but gains permanent notability. --MASEM 22:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's more dimensions too besides primary/secondary/tertiary and third-party vs. self-published; we use sources of widely varying provenance and neutrality. But the point I'm debating with SmokeyJoe I think is whether a news article must contain original research to qualify as a secondary source (which I don't think is the case). Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: WP:PSTS used to contain the wording "a journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either."[4] I don't know how this got left out, but I'll put something on the talk page asking that it be restored. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

“whether a news article must contain original research to qualify as a secondary source” is an excellent description of our difference. “A journalist's story about” probably contains OR and is a secondary source. “A journalist’s report of” probably doesn’t contain OR and is not a secondary source if it reproduces/reports/records the facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I'm making. Something doesn't need to contain an original synthesis to qualify as a secondary source. Meaning the Wikipedia concept of a secondary source, which for most editors is not the same definition used in historiography. What it does need is a reputation for fact-checking and an editorial board that decides which stories are imporant enough to publish. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The present wording there is the result of months of discussion, and is a tight compromise. The issue is that although your meaning of secondary source includes news stories, other established meanings of the term don't. I remember posting on this page when the term "secondary source" was added to WP:N, to point out that the change would mean that article sources only news stories don't pass it, for example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are all missing the point of what I was asking. Whether or not news articles are reliable sources is not the issue here (that particular discussion would be better suited to the talk on WP:RS; in any case, they tend to get treated as reliable sources in practice in deletion debates). The problem is that this section is being quoted in AfDs to justify the inclusion of subjects that have only had a small amount of news coverage on no more than one or two occasions. The argument goes like this: (a) a subject is presumed notable if it has had coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, (b) once notable, always notable, therefore (c) because something has had a brief flurry of news coverage, it is therefore entitled to a Wikipedia article -- which is in contradiction to WP:NOT#NEWS. What I'm asking for is the wording of the section to address the issue more clearly than it had. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 13:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this solve the problem you see? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 07:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a very gray area around how big a news event has to be before it becomes notable enough to include in Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

'nuf said! Digital athena (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability was a first shot at preventing people from wasting their time on things that were too trivial to easily be checked. I thought it could be entirely replaced by verifiability and reliable sources by now.

The page says that notability criteria should be objective, but imho notability itself has always been a fairly subjective subject.

Finally, I simply don't like guidelines that are made solely to serve some XFD process. (Imagine if Esperanza or AMA had created guidelines... there'd be an outcry!)

Have people already been phasing out the use of Notability as a criterion?

Perhaps we can replace the guidline with just "2 reliable sources" and merge that with Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I'm asking here first, because redirects are annoying :-P

Because notability is more than just sourcing; the "significant coverage" part is important there as well as "secondary" sources, and additionally it is subjective, and that subjectively needs to be described in a guideline approach; merging it with RS would leave RS doing a lot more than just describing reliable sources and would complicate it there. Mind you, I see people that would like to have absolutely no notability guideline in place at all, while others want it to be policy. I also don't see notability meant solely to serve AfD: it is meant to help people know what is needed in articles before their creation or to correct it when existing articles lack it, though it also serves to keep back the tide of new pages covering non-encyclopedic elements as well that newer editors tend to create when they are unaware of guidelines and policy. --MASEM 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So in summary, not only is it unnecessary, subjective, and essentially random, it also bites newbies. Like that didn't hit the newspapers before. This situation is so bad that it actually costs us donations and editors.

It doesn't have to be this way. Wikipedia is not paper has been a dead letter for long enough. Time for us to start enforcing it again? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We asked ArbCom to take a look at a related situation; they threw up their hands and basically said it's a real mess. Nifboy (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Way cool! They even quoted "not paper!" :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) <smug look> but of course, they would</smug look> (what's the point of cool quotes like that if you can't be smug about 'em? ;-) )

Yes the situation is bad. WP:N is a black hole, so dense that no article can escape past the event horizon. --Pixelface (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See above about the economist article about the battle for WP's soul. We could make notability policy, or we could abolish it, but either direction is a battlefield. What we need to do it realize that notability should not meant deletion - I've been tuning and working on a WP:FICT that compromises both sides, with heavy emphasis that AfD should be the absolute last step in the process. Warning newbies that their articles lack notability and other areas is much much better than CSD/AfD the articles off the bat. --MASEM 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good first step. It seems like an attainable compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If "notability should not mean deletion" then it should be removed from WP:DEL#REASON. The mention of WP:N in that policy basically turns this mixed-up guideline into policy. --Pixelface (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a failure to assert notability is a speedy deletion criteria as well. Vassyana (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In CSD, notability can only be used on articles types that typically results in the generation of self-advertisements without additional notability: people, musical groups, businesses, and web sites/software. From what I've seen during cleanup of CAT:CSD, this CSD criteria is necessary for this specific purpose, otherwise every random joe would create a page to talk about themselves. Any other topic has to go through the longer term PROD or AFD process if notability isn't demonstrated. --MASEM 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability shouldn't mean deletion, but that doesn't mean we don't remove the reason to delete articles due to lack of notability. What this means is that we should be focusing on letting page editors know a topic is found to be non-notable and giving them time to correct it, or if they can't, means to move the coverage of the topic into a larger, more notable aspect. Ideally, editors will work harmoniously with the ones concerned about notability, but we know this is not the case. There are still times that it may be necessary to take a disputed non-notable article to AfD if no other home for the content can be found, it is just that this should be the last step in the process after all other avenues of retaining at least some portion of the article topic content have been found. --MASEM 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I could support Kim in this as a long-term goal, but in practice notability is substantially ingrained in WP and removing it now would be an overwhelming battle as it was last year. We should look at what is possible rather than what is perfect in the shorter-term and strive for perfection over time. My concern is less with the core here at WP:N, but the proliferation of redundant and contradictory permutations of BIO, ORG, PROF, etc. And the perpetual proposals for special cases. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  <grin> I thought you might like the idea. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Absent strong objections at the talk page for WP:Academics I think that it is time to merge this page into BIO. The better parts of this process have been incorporated into BIO for some time and this is now just a redundant page. Perhaps further ideas in clarification of BIO could be included in an essay. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there has been considerable discussion on that page, some of it possibly classifiable as "strong opposition". Those interested who have not yet commented are encouraged to read the arguments on both sides and join the discussion. DGG (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the bullets under General notability guidelines begins "'sources,' defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources...." I don't know what that means. Also, refuse recognize a guideline that purports to define anything for all of Wikipedia. (Yes, that means that I find that so arrogant that I do not recognize this guideline at all.) --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What that means is to demonstrate notability you need sources that are published by a third party that has an editorial board and a reputation for fact-checking. There are other kinds of sources, such as official documents, (sometimes)self-published material, fiction, which we can cite in articles but they don't give the subject a claim to notability. See WP:PSTS. Though I would like to argue that tertiary sources, such as textbooks, atlases, and other encyclopedias, are another possible way to argue notability, and because there is a debate over the definition of "secondary source" perhaps this guideline should use a different wording. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding the phrase "third party" at all costs. A reputation for independence and fair play is much more important than the complex web of corporate ownership and government oversight that can make it a major reasearch project to decide who is, or isn't, a third party. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a third-party (independent source), they would rarely (at best) have a "reputation for independence", no? Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat new to WP so if this has been discussed before please point me in the right direction to see the history. I have been reading quite a bit on notability issues here at WP but I have not yet seen anything that addresses the following:

I believe a waiver of the {{Primarysources}} tag may be in order for articles which describe the details and nature of any modern school of thought or belief systems. Published experts who would write on such matters would most likely be either proponents or opponents to such teachings.

For example: The WP article on Unity, the largest of the New Thought denominations is currently tagged with {{Primarysources}}. This is a denomination that has tens of thousands of congregants and is quite controversial (ergo notable) among some sects of Christianity ... yet it raises no academic or journalistic red flags so the only published sources on the teachings of the church are all primary sources either for or against those teachings.

Another example might be the New Thought denomination called Divine Science which has already fallen to the WP:NN issue. This denomination has significant historical context within New Thought seminaries due to one of its widely published authors, Joseph Murphy.

Maybe what we need is a new tag, something like:

Primary Sources Waiver for Belief System Description

"Readers are advised this article/section describes a belief system and uses only primary source material which cannot be considered objective. This article/section is allowed under a specific exception to the WP policy requiring secondary and tertiary sources, provided the article is accurate to it's sources and maintains a NPOV." See WP:PSTS for more information.

Is this a good idea or if not why not, and how would one go about proposing creation of a new policy and tag indicating such a waiver? Low Sea (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - why can there be no secondary sources about these beliefs? Neutral experts might cover both points of view in a survey. (In fact, if such neutral sources do not exist, that's rather a hint towards non-notability of the topic.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary or (the prefered) tertiary source is essentially going to be one of three types of document: [1] a journalistic news article, [2] an academic research paper, or [3] a significant commercial publication. My opinion (and it is only an opinion ... which is why I have put it here for discussion) is that the WP:PSTS policy, while being a good general guideline to reduce flotsam, needs a workable exception policy because otherwise subjects can only be considered notable if they somehow have succeeded in pleasing a news editor, an academic advisor, or a publishing executive. This creates a fairly strong bias towards economically viable documentation rather than neutral facts. When dealing with modern day belief systems it may be extremely difficult to find unbiased publications that describe the system details, and even harder to find detailed descriptions of said systems which are written by 2nd or 3rd party sources. Note that I said "may" ... sometimes you can find such references, but generally you cannot.

In a real encyclopedia entries sometimes exist which may not be notable in their own right ... but are appropriate because they are relevant to other notable topics. In WP these articles may be nothing more than a stub article or merely a single paragraph/section in a larger article but they still need to be there to make the larger article "comprehensive" (aka "encyclopedic").

The {{Primarysources}} template is garbage and should be deleted. Although there are issues surrounding relying only on primary sources, it is not possible to put an adequate summary of the situation in a little box. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS does not prohibit the use of primary sources. The restriction you are referring to is purely a matter of the notability and verifiability rules. Verifiability states that is there are no reliable third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. Notability requires significant coverage in reputable sources that are independent of the subject. Essentially, it all comes down to creating a circumstance where complete encyclopedic articles can be created while adhering to the wiki NPOV without engaging in original research. In terms of cost-benefit, a radical liberalization of such standards is (in my own view) far more likely to create huge swaths of promotional vehicles and original research than it is useful and encyclopedic articles. Nature of the beast and man, and all that. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Third party" and "independent of the subject" constitute terrible wording. If I could get away with it, I'd rip those phrases out of the policies and guidelines immediately. I've discussed it on the talk pages of WP:V and WP:N in the past. The editors that dominate those pages think "third party" really means impartial, and does not refer to any financial connection between the publisher or author and the subject matter. Also they think it's obvious that "independent of the subject" only applies when the subject is some kind of person or organization that can have a conflict-of-interest; it doesn't apply to abstract subjects such as general relativity or algebra. Algebra isn't capable of having a conflict-of-interest. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What wording would you suggest to cover the intent without the current clumsy phrasing? Vassyana (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe notability should be established through coverage in reliable sources where either the author or the publisher are impartial; it is not necessary that both the author and publisher be impartial. As an alternative, the topic could be covered by several partial reliable sources which have opposing points of view. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if an otherwise impartial and well-respected historian were published by a religious publisher, of some particular bias, the source would remain acceptable? Or, on the other side, if a partisan writer were published by a well-respected impartial university press, that would also be considered acceptable? On the latter point, do they necessarily have to be "opposing" views? Would simply a requirement for a "spectrum" or "myriad" of views seem appropriate? Unless I am misunderstanding, the focus should be on a breadth of coverage, rather than balanced presentation. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The publisher touches the text last, so the publiser be reliable, so that we can be sure the views of the author have been fairly presented. A biased unreliable publisher might quote an impartial reliable author out of context. A spectrum of views would be good, but a myriad of views could all be from about the same point of view. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many "respectable" publishers but there is no such thing as an "unbiased" publisher ... publishing is a business and ultimately biased by financial considerations. The marketability of a book's contents drive the decisions of even the most respected publishers. Some good and notable books never get published because there simply is no substantial market for them, some sections are edited or deleted to please the buying public. Low Sea (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been giving a lot of thought and review to the subject of WP:Notability (WP:N) and come to a rather radical new perspective on the subject: "Notability may need to be defined and/or qualified, at least to some degree, by the informational needs of the readers."

In trying to find solutions to my issue of WP:N versus details for subjective belief systems (see the section above) I perused a lot of the WP internal policies, guidelines, discussions, memoranda and essays on content requirements. In the process I noticed that many of the editors here may have developed a mild case of IvoryTower-itis -- that is they appear to have developed a tendency to forget about the end-users of their research efforts. It may sound cold considering that every editor here is a human being (if you ignore the bots) but I begin to wonder if we haven't forgotten about the people side of the equation -- "people" in this case refering to those non-editor users who come to Wikipedia to simply read the information collected here.

This is not a rant or flame, merely an observation and my admittedly subjective interpretation. To test if this interpretation is accurate I propose the following question: When was the last time you asked yourself: "Why do people come to Wikipedia?"

I remember reading somewhere in those guidelines and policies that when trying to determine if an article is appropriate for creation at WP we should think about the question "Would you find this article in a printed encyclopedia?" ^{(link needed)}. Thinking about that question led me to wonder about matters like "How does a print encyclopedia decide what to include/exclude?" and "Why do people use encyclopedias (print or otherwise)?"

I would be curious to hear what your answers are to the above questions but since this is the WP:N talkpage let me stay on topic and bring it into focus with the following question:

Can WP:Notability be qualified in terms of what people come to Wikipedia looking for?

For example: If 5,000 people each month type in the same search term and find "No page with that title exists", should WP add a page to answer the people's need/desire for information even if it does not meet typical WP:N criteria? Low Sea (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is not so much, "Why do people come to Wikipedia?", but "What and how much reliable information can Wikipedia offer to its readers?", and "What should be done when (almost) no reliable information exists?" E.g compare Mythology_of_Lost#The_Monster (which still has a bit too much of OR/PLOT) with http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/The_Monster (don't forget to check out the theory tab). Clearly, everyone wants to read up on what the Monster of Lost is all about, but that doesn't mean that wikipedia can and (should) cover all the speculation in detail. So I'd answer your last question with no, it is just a good approximation for a limit when reliable sources become scarce. I am sure the notability of non-fiction can be argued in a similar way. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would consider this answered by saying that we would like WP to be the first, but definitely not the last, place that people come for information. By visiting WP, readers should learn a skin-deep level about a topic, and further information should be given in the numerous sources that are required by verifiability, with the emphasis on secondary sources as we cannot assume the reader is 100% familiar with the topic that solely primary sources will be that useful; thus the need for analysis and commentary provided in secondary ones. We balance this against WP:IINFO, because while we can provide a lot of skin-deep info, we should not attempt to fully describe every aspect of the topic and remove the necessity of using those additional sources. Mind you, there are people that have come to expect that "WP is cataloguing the entire compendium of human knowledge" which is of course not a goal of an encyclopedia, so we have to be aware there are reader misconceptions on the project. --MASEM 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with those above, the answer is simple: People come here for information, for knowledge, but most apply no discrimination when they use those words when railing against deletion on whatever basis, be it notability or otherwise. We hear unparsed mantras: "who does it harm to keep this information"; "isn't Wikipedia supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge"; "all information someone bothered to type should be retained" and a million variations. There is no filtering going on through the lens of what "encyclopedia" should and must mean even if these people know in theory that Wikipedia is something other than a blog or free for all site. The product we must strive for is reliable information and actual knowledge while maintaining ourselves as a tertiary source. Without reliable sourcing this is not what our readers get, though they often don't and won't ever know it. Yet, I have never once sourced an unsourced but detailed article, or seen it done by others, where it was not found that there existed entirely incorrect information. So we are attempting to give the reader what they come here for, even if it is in spite of themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that "informational needs of readers" is an improper criterion. First, there's hardly any objective criterion for that, anything you read about it is highly subjective. (Or do you really want to carry out a proper market research on Wikipedia reader's needs?) Second, our aim is not to fulfill "all informational needs" that readers might have. For example, readers might well need information from a phone book. While online phone books exist, we're not one, and cannot reasonably be. Readers might want to find gossip and rumour about celebrities. While there are websites where they find it, it's not what an encyclopaedia is for. Readers might want to find their classmates of old... etc.
All in all, we're not the internet at large. Wikipedia has a limited scope, and we need a limited scope to reasonably maintain the site. Interestingly, hardly anyone dares to define that scope precisely. But roughly, the consensus seems to be that Wikipedia should contain verifiable facts about notable topics from the real world. The WP:N guideline may be vague at times, but it's the best consensus we currently have. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the lead, there is this troublesome sentence:

'If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable.'

True, a poorly written stub can still be notable. But ultimately, the notability must come from secondary sources. So, if those cannot be shown, then the topic / article cannot be shown to be notable except by original research. I don't advocate deleting stub / poorly written articles. I do advocate deleting topics that are not and cannot be sourced.

I advocate removing the sentence as it requires the community to prove a negative which is an impossible standard. Either the topic / article states why it is notable through reference to secondary sources or it doesn't: if it doesn't, then it is de facto not notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement is not a loophole, but rather an important clarification. There is a difference between "cannot be sourced" and "is not presently sourced", and we should not make judgements about the notability of a topic based on the present state of an article. While it is impossibly to prove non-notability and the burden of proof should and does rest with those who seek to retain the article, showing that coverage exists is enough to prove notability; the added step of adding sources to the article, while desirable, is not needed to prove notability. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First let me say I do not recognize this guideline due to rotten wording. Setting that aside, Wassupwestcoast said "But ultimately, the notability must come from secondary sources." No, that's wrong. If reliable independent secondary sources provide significant coverage of a topic, that is conclusive proof that the topic is notable, but the reverse does not follow. It is possible to prove a topic is notable through coverage by primary sources if they are used appropriately; the Reliable sources guideline allows articles based only on primary sources in some instances. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I am not sure how this can be denied. An article can be deleted at AfD if the subject is notable, but no reliable secondary sources can be found, so this is not really a loophole. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Until's statement. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So you think the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? _(1 == 2)^Until 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe "an article can be deleted at AfD if the subject is notable, but no reliabel secondary sources can be found". No such reason is listed at WP:DEL#REASON. It does refer to this guideline, but this guideline doesn't say that either. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", sounds like a match to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you have fallen for the widespread misconception that primary sources are unreliable. This is false. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not so apparent, primary sources are fine for some data, but they are not a basis for an article. It is through my experience in both debating and closing AfD's that I assure you we do delete articles for the reason of not having secondary reliable sources, even if the subject is itself notable. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the issue is not what type of sourcing is needed to prove notability, but rather whether the article needs to cite sources in order for the topic to be considered notable. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we delete articles for merely not having RSs we shouldnt be. We delete articles because they can be shown not to be sourceable , not merely currently unsourced. Someone has to have made a good faith search for sources and failed to find them. The usual situation leading to appropriate deletion for lack of sourcing is that someone responsible tries to find sources, finds the best they can, puts them forward, and they are considered inadequate. That's how you do show absence--you look by appropriate means in appropriate places, and fail to find--it doesnt prove absence, but the failure of a proper search considering all the possibilities does show it pretty well, if the article is such that the search would have found it. eg. absence of google hits is significant for a claimed internet meme, absence of book reviews for a work of fiction, absence of newspaper articles about a politician. DGG (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree DGG but the problem is that we have some powerful circular logic in play. An article should not be deleted solely on issue of notability for lack of reliable sources but an article is not allowed to exist without verifiability, and verifiability requires reliable sources. If the absolute lynchpin for notability is secondary/tertiary sources then every other word of that guideline is absolutely meaningless fluff. Why bother having the WP:N policy at all?!? I am somewhat tempted to take WP:N to AfD on grounds of redundancy with WP:V and see what fun that creates. :)

What is interesting to note however is the following tiny bit of text burried inside WP:N...

Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

The way I read this is that a non-notable subject may be a section within a notable article. Of course then you again get to deal with the circular logic problems but it seems that you might be able to use only reliable primary sources in such a section to satisfy verifiability. Could this be the reason for needing WP:N -- to differentiate between criteria for stand-alone articles versus sub-articles? Low Sea (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Two key things to remember: notability is a concept applied at the topic level, while verification is applied at the article level. A topic may consist of one main article and a handful of spinouts; as long as notability is demonstrated in the main article and with the caveat that the spinouts are written as spinouts, then notability's concept is upheld; this I see as an extension of "notability does not limit article content". Verification means that we obviously need sources in each individual article, even if that means we are resorting to primary sources in the spinouts. Verification is non-negotiable as a WP pillar. N and V are two very different beasts, even though they share many concepts alike; at worst, one can argue that N helps to support the verification goal of WP by requiring sources for any topic that is covered.

The other aspect is that people need to remember that notability is a inclusion guideline for WP, but it is not the inclusion guideline for WP (though used more than 99% of the time to determine what should be included). Unfortunately, we don't list out what other inclusion guidelines we have, but that's part of what the statement that started this section implies. And again, with notability being a guideline , there are implied exceptions to it as well.

What unfortunately I think has happened is that many newer editors see WP:N as being part of WP's deletion policy, which it strictly is not true; it is a possible reason for deletion, but as a guideline, there's ways around it, and non-notable content does not always have to be deleted as there are usually ways to incorporate some aspects of it within a larger, notable topic (with WP:IINFO kept in mind). It's a mindset issue, and one we need to ween editors off of. --MASEM 12:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wassupwestcoast, I added that to the lead to clarify an important point. Many editors look at the current state of the article to determine notability. Up until December 7, 2007, the Human skeleton article had no citations. Does that mean the human skeleton is not notable? No, it doesn't. It means the article needs improvement. The Skeleton article still has no citations to this day. Does that mean that skeletons are not notable? No, it doesn't. It means the article has no citations. Citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is one way of suggesting notability, but I certainly don't think it's the only way. --Pixelface (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia articles about celebrities, etc. mention siblings, or no? I'm wondering as some articles mention certain celebrities having sisters/brothers while others don't mention about them. --72.230.46.168 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability only pertains to article topics, not content. If the content is relevant to the subject, it should be included, weight and verifiability permitting. Regards, Skomorokh 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about celebrities, etc. should mention siblings, etc, only if independent secondary sources about the celebrity have previously mentioned siblings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous policy meant to keep people from making articles about their brothers and classmates, but come up with something addressing that issue that isn't a cop-out. The criteria for notability are too subjective, and frankly notability would limit the encyclopedia to about 1000 articles, under any reasonable interpretation of notability. The only reason I came by the notability page is because I had visited maybe the third or fourth article in a month where there was a debate about the "notability" of the article in question. Nevertheless, the articles in question provided valuable information to me. So let's leave the calls for what is notable to the person USING wikipedia and actually looking for the information. One man's notable is another man's junk. 24.182.229.4 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if Wikipedia wants all of their articles to be published in such publications as Newsweek, or Time, than they should get rid of most of there now 10 million+ articles. Some pages are about published topics, and are in newsletters or press releases, but aren’t on the NBC Nightly News, or on CNN. Everyone isn’t that privileged. I disagree with what some admins have told me about what is a "reliable" source. I think that a school's newsletter or a local newspaper article is a reliable source.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What we accept as reliable sources will vary depending on the type of subject, the type of statement, etc. The issue of reliability is separate from that of notability though. In the case of the quiz bowl team article that you're arguing against the deletion of, the problem isn't that the person saying it should be deleted doesn't believe the sources on the page are accurate, it's that he doesn't think they prove the team is particularly significant.

However, in your case, I think I can be a slight help to you, if only on a technicality: that speedy deletion template is only for cases where the article does not attempt to assert notability. Your page does, it's just a very weak claim. --erachima formerly tjstrf 03:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing i have to say about this all is why does it have to be significant. I could see it needing to be significant if you were trying to fit the articles into a 1000 page book, but your not. wikipedia has nearly unlimited capacity, and if not, server storage is cheap. who is judging how significant the article it. to a lot of people, academic team is their life. I'm having this problem a lot with wikipedia, and quite frankly, I'm insulted because i don't think that my article needs to be significant to everyone. I understand that things need to be reasonable, but the articles I'm dealing with are not wickedly long, or illagly obtained, or anything else, except that some admin deemed it "not significant" to their standards. I'm not finding fault with you, just the system--Headtechie2006 (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The limit is not in server space, it's in maintainability. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone briefly (20 words or less) explain to me in what the key difference is between WP:N and WP:V. I have tried and the answer I am coming up with is just plain silly so I must be crazy. I would really like to see as many people provide their own independent interpretations. Low Sea (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Material that cannot be verified should not appear in Wikipedia because it is likely to be false. Topics that are not notable should not appear in Wikipedia because they create clutter and divert attention from worthwhile topics. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Topics that are not notable should not appear in Wikipedia because they create clutter and divert attention from worthwhile topics. " How do they do that, according to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that clutter is the main issue; in my opinion, it is the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How does the rule on notability ensure that wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Does this include excluding otherwise useful information? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a proxy measure for whether a topic is "worthy of notice"; in some ways, I consider the notability guidelines to be parallel to (but not derived from) WP:NOT. As for your second quetsion: no, notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" is very very odd. It basically states that by simply reorganizing information, you can have it included or excluded from the encyclopedia. Or, in other words, that the way the information is organized is more important than the actual content. Heh, what a thing to admit. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not the fault of the guideline that deletion is too often used as an alternative to merging. :) The principal purpose of Wikipedia:Notability is to provide guidance as to whether a topic should be covered in its own article; if the answer is "no", then the information should be merged elsewhere or, if a suitable target does not exist, deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many editors think that notability can be explained in terms of verifiability. Notability comes from sources- if lots of relevant sources are writing about a thing, we can have an article about it with some hope of decent quality. The best reason not to attempt to have articles on things where there are no sources is that we have no way of ensuring quality. Along the lines of the above argument, one could further argue that having and keeping non-notable articles attracts editors who aren't here to work on an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So you basically express notability in terms of verifiability? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, it's useful, there's no good way to argue with it that I've ever seen. Uncle G said it best I think: User:Uncle G/On notability. Friday (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can express notability in terms of verifiability all of the time, that has interesting consequences. Is that in fact the case? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's stronger than that. Reliable sources do not suffice; they need to be significant and independent of the subject.--B. Wolterding (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I was writing that I suspect it probably can be. Then again, I don't count things as being verifiable if the sources aren't significant and independent. Or, perhaps, to put a fine point on it: an insignificant mention in a source may be enough to verify that a thing exists... but we need to verify much more than that to have any hope of a real article. Friday (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Verification is a measure of truthfulness. Notability is a measure of relevance. (14 words, ha!) --MASEM 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut it down to 11 and you can give WP:IAR a run for its money. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Verification is a measure of truthfulness; Notability, relevance." how about 8? Though seriously, this also matches in line with the two dimensions that sources can be considered: first, second, third-party sources are (mostly) to verification as primary, secondary, and tertiary are to notability. --MASEM 13:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:' I put the break in here just before the most recent comment (below) because erachima's point really is separate from the various explanations provided above. I am responding below. -- Low Sea

"Key difference"? Wait, what? Verifiability and notability have no significant relationship in the first place. There is a small correlation between them in that things about which there is no verifiable information cannot be significant, but that's not really related to the principle of either rule. The notability guidelines are here because, even after limiting ourselves to knowledge that is in some way or another encyclopedic (e.g. not advertisements, directory entries, etc.), we still cannot have an infinitely broad focus or we could get nothing done. By defining only certain things as notable, we can work more effectively and better serve our readers (which is the main reason we're here, of course). They help support other things as well, such keeping out spam and nonsense, but those aren't the primary reason. --erachima formerly tjstrf 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I keep seeing the requested difference explained in terms of WHY but not WHAT. Since I have provided ample time for replies here is my observation:

1. WP:V mandates that each article must have at least one verifiable source per WP:RS.
2. WP:N mandates that each article must have at least two verifiable sources per WP:RS.

If you cut through all the sludge that is about the sum total difference between the two other than WHY they exist. Please correct me if I am wrong (as mentioned earlier, I may be crazy). Low Sea 08:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Verifiability requires reliable sources to support individual claims. Notability requires that enough substantive references exist to support a complete article. (20 words on the nose! *chuckle*) Vassyana (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I know I am sounding like a semantics wordsmith right now but please bear with me, I really am trying to get a grip on this thing (if that is possible). Above you use two phrases: "reliable sources" and "substantive references". What exactly is the difference between these two phrases? I searched all of WP for the latter and found just 27 hits, all of which were either used only in talk pages or in nomination pages. I could not find the phrase defined anywhere. I also would like to see if I can restate my question to make what I am asking for more clear. See break 2 below. Low Sea (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to identify the difference in the mechanics of these two policies - the "how it works" if you will... Motivation and reasoning for using policies are fine but the actual mechanics used to say "complies" versus "does not comply" should be independent of these.

A good example of mechanics is the WP:RS primary/secondary/tertiary source definitions. Reguardless of why you might use one of these three types of sources, the difference between them is consistent and able to be identified with ease.

So, can anyone define the difference between how WP:V is proved and how WP:N is proved without refering to why the references are needed? As far as I can tell the mechanical difference between these two policies (as written) is nothing more than one of how many WP:RS are referenced. Low Sea (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I must note that I very strongly disagree with the implications of your opening. I do not believe the "mechanics" of the rules can be independent of the underlying motivation for the rules without completely divorcing the letter of policy from the spirit of policy. The written rules of Wikipedia are an imperfect written attempt to codify the principles underlying the rules and the consensus of the established community.

That being said, I shall attempt to explain the "mechanistic" distinctions between the rules.

Verifiability is satisfied when a statement or block of information that is challenged, or likely to be (reasonably) challenged, is supported by a citation to an acceptable source. The source should be relevant, cited accurately and used in-context (which relates very closely to Wikipedia:No original research). Verifiability addresses sourcing information within articles, both in principle and mechanically.

Notability requires multiple sources; two is certainly "multiple", but like most bare minimums, rarely enough. However, multiple sources are not the end-all be-all of notability. Those multiple sources must be third-party (independent). They additionally must provide substantive (in-depth) coverage of the subject. Notability is usually considered established for a topic when multiple reliable independent sources provide in-depth coverage of the topic. Notability addresses whether or not we are likely to have enough sources to craft a complete article, both in principle and mechanics.

Both verifiability and notability require reputable references.

Verifiability deals with the information in the article. Notability deals with the topic of the article.

It is important to bear in mind that the major content rules are deeply interrelated and arise from similar principles, which essentially rely on the basic principles of sound sourcing and accurate presentation.

I hope my pedagogical rant was helpful. :-) Vassyana (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Biographicon : crowd-sourcing non-notables.

There should be a pleasant, courteous, automatic way to tell users who create non-notable biographies that there are other appropriate forums for their work. Wikipedia is not the only game in town. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We generally tell people that when we're in the middle of deleting their non-notable biographies on AfD. Or if it's a speedy, after the fact. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the links. Skomorokh 16:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

very interesting . they seem to be using our material without including the licensing, and I can find no licensing statementat the site about their own policy.DGG (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the topic of book sales volumes has been raised before in some context but I just found this website[5] who identify themselves as a small firm doing independent research on book sales volumes using the amazon.com database. Would this be considered a secondary (tertiary?) source for book sales volumes and if so would these numbers be acceptable for providing notability on (A) books, and (B) authors ?? Low Sea (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In my first draft of Wikipedia:Notability (books) I had two related criteria: 1) The book is by a bestselling author. 2) The book has sold more than 100,000 copies. We went through various iterations. A version about a month later contained: 1) The book is a major work by a bestselling or at least notable author. 2) The book is fiction and has verifiably sold more than 500,000 copies. 3) The book is nonfiction and has verifiably sold more than 250,000 copies. It's hard to recreate nor would you appreciate the sprawling and contentious discussions that resulted in the guideline we have today but we ultimately found that for a variety of reasons, book sales numbers were not a good basis for establishing notability. To summarize poorly, some of the salient points hit upon were: books vary vastly in audience depending on where they're from (geographically) and what they're used for, such that making a positive criteria of over a certain number of sales to establish notability, which to some will imply (incorrectly) lack of notability if a book doesn't meet the arbitrary threshold, would do more harm than good.

To give an example, academic books often have small printing runs, but come to be published through very different processes than mainstream books and may be used only or chiefly by universities so the numbers will be small, or they may be on an esoteric subject but be the leading authority on that subject, yet have a tiny publication footprint. Or a book that is read all over a tiny country, but nowhere else, will pale next to a book read all over a larger country.

Then, of course, there was wrangling over the arbitrary benchmark number of sales to use, for the very reason that choosing a number was to some extent necessarily arbitrary. It kept getting lowered for the exceptions to the rules to the point where it became ineffective. You must have a too high number, not a too low, because we are attempting to establish notability criteria, not lack of notability criteria. Then it was raised that there are certain types of books that can sell huge numbers but may still not be notable (the example were certain types of cookbooks or manuals for particular types of machinery if memory serves), and with very low numbers we were at a point it was so tepid it was useless.

Anyway, there was much more and you are welcome to torture yourself reading the gallons of ink spilled (don't forget to start with the archives and see you in about ten hours), but the long and the short of it was: it was too hard to use effectively because of the variability of books; it was arbitrary and so on. After it was removed, from all of the research that came out we actually included a note for a long time: "There is no present agreement on how high or low a book must fall on Amazon's sale's rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability, vel non." We eventually removed this too. I think similar problems may crop up for authors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. I appreciate the Reader's Digest version of the history on this issue. Saved me a lot of reading (10 hours hmmm?) and even more digesting of that (ahem)discussion. Sigh ... back to the drawing board. I am trying to establish notability on a very well published (all works combined probably total over 500,000 sales) author and lecturer (self-help and spiritual guidance genre) from the 1950-1980 era but so far no luck. Guess I just don't know where to look. Any suggestions? Low Sea (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Give us the name. Much harder to give targeted advice in the hypothetical. In any event, the touchstone is always reliable sources dicsussing the person. I might be able to help there, again with the specifics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews in periodicals are your best bet for authors and their books. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out a good way to search periodicals en masse.--Father Goose (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Of course! ... The author I am trying to establish notability for is the late Dr. Joseph Murphy and to a lesser extent also the late Dr. William Hornaday. Now what I am about to say is certainly WP:OR so it doesn't help my search but I raise it here to add a small degree of perspective (ie: these men had real followings in their day)...

• When I was a boy in the 70's my dad (an interfaith minister) studied with both Dr. Murphy and with Dr. Hornaday. Each of these men started a new church, each had a weekly congregation of well over 1,000 people, and each a daily morning radio broadcasts throughout the Los Angeles area. As a kid I was "dragged" to these Sunday services and personally saw the standing room only congregations many times. Both buildings (the Wilshire-Ebell Theatre[6] and Founder's Church[7] respectively) are still in Los Angeles and actively in use. Dr. Murphy's church faded (his sermons were basically inspirational lectures and he had no assistant in place to take over) when he retired and moved away in 1976. Dr. Hornaday's church is still going strong. I am quite certain the impact of these men through their writings and ministries left lasting "memorable" impact on tens of thousands of people. Also, from personal inquiry with Religious Science ministers I am advised that the writings of these men is part of their required seminary reading.

Any help you can provide is appreciated. -- Low Sea (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Given names please!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be able to show it for WH, world Cat lists him as William H D Hornday, but almost no libraries have his books. For JM, there are a few hundred more holdings total of his books in several languages, & I think you could show notability. The sources for book reviews are Book Review Digest and Brook Review Index, and any large library will have them available--they do not necessarily cover works on New Thought very well. DGG (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the sources and will look into them as time permits. Too bad there isn't an online version of those references tomes. :)

breaking in, they are indeed online, and a good many libraries provide them remotely for their patrons. DGG (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of WH, the lack of provable notability is troubling. Consider the following: According to many primary aka questionable (by WP standards) sources WH was a man who led the first R.Sc. church in the country, had a personal congregation that was estimated to be over 7,000 people plus his daily radio audience, served for many decades in the capacity of eclesiastical leader for the early R.Sc. community, wrote numerous books that have wide sales (and loyal ownership, ie: they are seldom sold/donated by owners) within R.Sc. circles and who is considered absolutely mandatory reading for R.Sc. ministerial candidates. Based on all of this it appears that WH altered the lives of the tens of thousands of people who eventually came to join the R.Sc. church movement he created. Common sense tells you he ought to be notable for many things yet because pretty much all sources are from "inside" R.SC. publications he cannot meet WP:N criteria. I am somewhat new to WP but I am certain I can find many similar subjects (certain popular fads come to mind). Are there no common sense processes for notability exceptions? -- Low Sea (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran a Google book search here for Joseph Murphy and immediately found some references. For example this is good fodder for added some cited material from a secondary source (consider using {{Cite book}} with the <ref></ref> function). For Hornaday, here's a few [8]; [9]; [10]. My quick look with results shows that there must be many more sources to mine. I'm certain the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers in the area must have written about both these men many times during their era. The fact that you might have to dig to find sources is the nature of the beast. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and our material must be written from already published sources. On the LA Times front, I just went to their website and searched their archives which only go back online to 1985 (but for images), and immediately found articles on or mentioning Hornaday—one called "Despite Unresolved Split, Religious Science Convention Goes On"; another called "Religious Science" and here's one really worth looking into: "Rev. William Hornaday; Religious Science Leader" (here's the absract). You would need to pay to access the full articles online. This means to me that if you go physically to a library with LA Times on file from the 50s and 60s in microfilm or in some other form, you'll find scads. In short, the system works fine. If someone was as influential as you say, then sources will exist, and lo and behold, here they do. But those wishing to include material and topics have the mandate of verifying information on the subject. No one ever said it wasn't work to write a proper encyclopedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the Religious Science publications should count as reliable sources about Religious Science itself, especially if treated as primary sources. They might not be good for establishing notability, but they are fine as a general source of information.--Father Goose (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole issue of "Notability" has to be very narrowly intersrted. People use encyclopedias for terms that run into but can not get much reliable information orgenized in one place. Therefor Notability does not be streached - other wise why need an encyclopdia at all.... Zeq (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's hard to decide though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not know if this is the right place. However, the power of an editor to decide about notability of an article must come with full disclosure to avoid conflict of interest. They must not hide behind nicknames. Here is a press release [11]

--76.185.167.132 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Said by an editor from an IP, it should be noted. It is the wrong place. Also, frankly, requirement of full disclosure is explicitly contrary to the rules of wikipedia. Without knowing the exact title of the article deleted, I can't myself know what content there was in it. However, all articles must meet the standards of WP:NOTABILITY. If the article in question did not specifically indicate where the subject has been officially discussed in a non-trivial way by an independent, reliable source, then it can and should be deleted, as per WP:NOT. Also, having read the frankly irresponsible and clearly one-sided press release linked to, I personally consider that statement, well, contemptible. There is a place where articles which have been nominated for deletion can be proposed to be recreated, at WP:DRV. I suggest that any parties interested in trying to restore the content go there to appeal the decision. However, if the article did not assert how the subject was notable as per the above linked-to guideline, I wouldn't expect much. We are dependent on the existence of independent secondary sources to establish the notability and trustworthiness of most articles. If this one didn't have them, I wouldn't expect it to be restored, although it could be recreated later if such notability were established. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The deletion log entry for the article in question is here. The press release linked above seems to be written based on an assumption that Wikipedia's entries are tantamount to advertising, which they are not (by policy, see WP:NOT#ADVERTISING). Wikipedia is certainly more likely to have an article about a large company than a small company - but only because of the relative likelihood of the existence of significant, independent sources of information about large vs. small companies. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)