Diego Moya (talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"> |
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"> |
||
;<big>'''Standalone pages for notable topics'''</big> |
;<big>'''Standalone pages for notable topics'''</big> |
||
When a topic satisfies the |
When a topic satisfies the sourcing standards for notability, having a standalone article on Wikipedia is a matter of style and how the available information is best presented. A notable subject can be covered better as part of an article for a broader topic, including context that would be lost on a separate page. Conversely, when there is enough information to create a [[WP:NPOV|well balanced article]], a separate page provides more room to cover the topic in depth. [[:Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines|Subject-specific notability guidelines]] and [[Wikipedia:Advice pages|WikiProject advice pages]] may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. |
||
Line 357: | Line 357: | ||
:::That approach sounds lovely. :-) If you can manage that feat, you'll have my respect. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
:::That approach sounds lovely. :-) If you can manage that feat, you'll have my respect. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::The one thing to keep in mind is that there will always be people on extremes - those that insist a notable topic must have a standalone article, and those that will think that anything that just barely shows notability should be deleted - and we're not going to change their behavior with this descriptive process of what we do. My goal in this overall is to simply give those majority of editors that fall in the middle a nice pointer to go "Hey, there's a better option to handling this topic..." something we presently cannot do with any guideline (MERGE only partially addresses this). So it is important that "editorial judgement" is a consensus-based decision and that often one enters IAR territory on these discussions. We would hope everyone involved in the consensus discussion is trying to think how best to present the topic to the reader, whether that's in context of other topics or standalone. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
:::The one thing to keep in mind is that there will always be people on extremes - those that insist a notable topic must have a standalone article, and those that will think that anything that just barely shows notability should be deleted - and we're not going to change their behavior with this descriptive process of what we do. My goal in this overall is to simply give those majority of editors that fall in the middle a nice pointer to go "Hey, there's a better option to handling this topic..." something we presently cannot do with any guideline (MERGE only partially addresses this). So it is important that "editorial judgement" is a consensus-based decision and that often one enters IAR territory on these discussions. We would hope everyone involved in the consensus discussion is trying to think how best to present the topic to the reader, whether that's in context of other topics or standalone. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::: You're right that in the end, it's always a consensual decision. That's why I think it's important to show a list of points that can tip the scales one way or the other; not as hard rules to follow, but as suggestions for ideas to have in mind during discussion. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 07:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::@WhatamIdoing: actually, that new wording you propose wouldn't work, as it differs from mine in an important way. My point was to express that sometimes editors will want a new article, sometimes they won't. I'm sure my text could benefit from some grammar checking (specially for prepositions) as English is not my mother language and it shows; but that first sentence should still be neutral with respect to the existence of a standalone article. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== What is "multiple" sources? == |
== What is "multiple" sources? == |
Revision as of 07:04, 20 November 2012
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Secondary and independent
This guideline deserves to be a bit more clear about whether notability requires independent sources, secondary sources, or both. Actual experience in AfD debates would indicate that both are required. And there is evidence of that here in the guideline. But it is not obvious, which is a problem for a concept of this importance. Take a look at the GNG. We have a definition of general notability that requires "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". But we don't learn that the sources should be secondary until we read the fine print in the qualifications, three paragraphs below. Not everyone reads the fine print, so the notion of "secondary" is often completely lost in the shuffle. That's why I'm suggesting we add the word "secondary" to the definition ("coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), or else clarify our stance on this issue. Also see some of the specific notability guidelines that already define general notability this way, like WP:ORG. NTox · talk 05:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is often confusion about these terms, and I agree it needs to be made clearer, because people screw this up ALL THE TIME. I think someone in a thread above still made this error in confusing primary/secondary with independence. Once more, for everyone watching:
- A primary source is a source that reports data or facts uncritically, but does not provide analysis or context for that information. (e.g. an article from a scientific journal which reports the result of an experiment, a government document like a birth certificate, the results from a national census)
- A secondary source provides analysis, synthesis, and context for information from primary sources. (a biography about a person, a book which analyzes a major historical event, etc.)
- A tertiary source aggregates the preponderance of what secondary sources say, and puts the general consensus of those sources in one single text. (school textbooks and encyclopedias)
- Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source, and we base the information here mostly on what secondary sources say on a subject, with limited use (where appropriate) of the raw unanalyzed primary sources to illustrate or support the articles. This is completely unrelated to the independence of a source. A source is independent if the author(s) of the source are unaffiliated with the subject of the source. Affiliated sources are also allowed at Wikipedia, for example if a company states on its own website where its corporate headquarters are located, or if a person is listed as on faculty at some university by that university website, unless we have reason to suspect otherwise, we can trust that basic information. Independent sources are more useful in general for all sorts of information, and menadatory to establish notability per WP:N, but that doesn't mean that affiliated sources are verboten. In summation, Wikipedia favors the use of independent and secondary sources when building articles, but those are concepts which are unrelated to each other, and should not be conflated when reviewing an article and its sources. --Jayron32 05:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, NTox is suggesting that we revise GNG to require "coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I understand everything that both NTox and Jayron32 are saying, but, in this case, I'm not convinced that coverage in reliable primary sources that are independent of the subject shouldn't satisfy GNG. The problem arises when primary sources are also not independent of the subject, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Common examples of independent primary sources are most newspaper articles that cover recent events, or things like recap articles of TV shows from entertainment magazines. Neither of those provide additional information that would otherwise fail NOT. (newspaper stories would be basically WP:NOTNEWS, and just adding recaps would be failing NOTPLOT). The secondary nature is necessary to put the topic in context of the larger scope of things, which requires original research that we as WP editors simply can't do. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding of NOTNEWS is that we don't keep pages that are just the news of the day, but we do have pages that are based upon newspaper reports that have accumulated over a period of time. We also have science pages that rely heavily on peer-reviewed primary articles from scientific journals. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I want to be clear I'm not saying that all newspaper articles or peer-reviewed journals are automatically primary. But most will be primary. If a news story has a long tail, you will start to likely find secondary stories (as through news magazines like Newsweek, or background development stories in major articles. Similarly with academic journals; areas of new research will generally have papers that are only primary to begin, but as these article gets re-cited and reviewed, secondary sources come about. That sorta gets to the idea about notability not being a news blip but something with some type of sustained coverage (though obviously it doesn't need to be sustained indefinitely) - sustained coverage will nearly always move from primary to secondary, and hence satisfy notability. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding of NOTNEWS is that we don't keep pages that are just the news of the day, but we do have pages that are based upon newspaper reports that have accumulated over a period of time. We also have science pages that rely heavily on peer-reviewed primary articles from scientific journals. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Common examples of independent primary sources are most newspaper articles that cover recent events, or things like recap articles of TV shows from entertainment magazines. Neither of those provide additional information that would otherwise fail NOT. (newspaper stories would be basically WP:NOTNEWS, and just adding recaps would be failing NOTPLOT). The secondary nature is necessary to put the topic in context of the larger scope of things, which requires original research that we as WP editors simply can't do. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, NTox is suggesting that we revise GNG to require "coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I understand everything that both NTox and Jayron32 are saying, but, in this case, I'm not convinced that coverage in reliable primary sources that are independent of the subject shouldn't satisfy GNG. The problem arises when primary sources are also not independent of the subject, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it might be helpful to break this down further ... leaving aside Tertiary sources, we have four situations to look at:
- Sources that are Primary and Dependent
- Sources that are Primary and Independent
- Sources that are Secondary and Dependent
- Sources that are Secondary and Independent
- I can not think of a situation where a source that fell into the first class would properly demonstrate notability. And I can not think of a situation where a source that fell into the last one wouldn't... but things get murky with the middle two. I think #2 comes into play with pop culture topics... One single Primary and Independent source will not really establish notability, but I think lots of them (taken as a group) can. When there are thousands of fan sites and blog postings out there, all talking about the same pop culture topic... it really is hard to read arguments that the topic isn't notable and keep a straight face. Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Way back I had the idea of what I called 1.5 sources - basically the 3rd category of secondary dependent sources. Using the "transformative" definition of secondary, this would be things like director's commentary on DVDs - obviously dependent, but often well enough separated from the original production to be considered a step removed and ergo secondary. This are generally okay, but only if to augment some type of secondary/independent sourcing.
- Primary/Independent is actually good for sourcing when secondary sources exist and notability's already show, but alone or with Primary/Dependent sources, aren't good enough. (Eg a straight-forward, non-critical recap of a TV episode). --MASEM (t) 00:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Masem... you are correct as far as sourcing statements goes (ie verifiability and reliability)... but not as far as notability goes. A movie director's comments (whether on a DVD or in some other venue) can not establish that his movie is notable. We need to show that the broader world has noted the movie. The more I think about this, the more I realize that we always need independent sources (ie #2 and #4 on my list) to demonstrate notability. Secondary Independent sources (#4 on my list) are best, and always acceptable... and multiple Primary Independent sources (#2 on my list) can sometimes be acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Right, that's what I said. These "1.5 sources" alone cannot show notability if there are no independent sources, but they can contribute to existing independent secondary sources if those are otherwise lacking. Common case in point is that if we only have a couple reviews from reliable sources and numerous production details from said commentary, notability is not likely to be challenged at the immediate time. But if its only the commentary, yea, that's basically a WP:V problem. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not... we have independent secondary sources (the reviews). But let's say the reviews are both from tiny local papers... the director's commentary would not help improve on the iffy notability problem. Taking info from the commentary might make for a better written and more interesting article, but not for a more notable topic. Blueboar (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- It will still be a judgement call and I can't pull up examples, but only based on how I observe AFD, given some but a weak set of independent secondary sourcing, the presence of dependent secondary sources can push an article over the edge into "keep" territory. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not... we have independent secondary sources (the reviews). But let's say the reviews are both from tiny local papers... the director's commentary would not help improve on the iffy notability problem. Taking info from the commentary might make for a better written and more interesting article, but not for a more notable topic. Blueboar (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Right, that's what I said. These "1.5 sources" alone cannot show notability if there are no independent sources, but they can contribute to existing independent secondary sources if those are otherwise lacking. Common case in point is that if we only have a couple reviews from reliable sources and numerous production details from said commentary, notability is not likely to be challenged at the immediate time. But if its only the commentary, yea, that's basically a WP:V problem. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Masem... you are correct as far as sourcing statements goes (ie verifiability and reliability)... but not as far as notability goes. A movie director's comments (whether on a DVD or in some other venue) can not establish that his movie is notable. We need to show that the broader world has noted the movie. The more I think about this, the more I realize that we always need independent sources (ie #2 and #4 on my list) to demonstrate notability. Secondary Independent sources (#4 on my list) are best, and always acceptable... and multiple Primary Independent sources (#2 on my list) can sometimes be acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a kind of rough agreement here that is consistent with my own opinion. That independent sources are probably the most important aspect of notability, but that secondary sources also help a lot. I like Blueboar's breakdown, and would say #1 rarely if ever has notability, #4 has the best notability, #2 is perhaps second best for notability, and #3 can help but is not incredibly strong. What this seems to amount to is, 'look for independence first, but also keep a close eye for secondary sources'. Do you guys think the proposed change is sufficient to capture this (assuming what I have described is true), or is there a better way? Because right now I think the role of secondary sources is too downplayed. NTox · talk 19:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps something like: "To demonstrate that an article topic is notable, coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is required (with a strong preference for coverage in independent secondary sources)." Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still somewhat in "thinking out loud" mode, but I like the concept that independence is of particular importance here. In a way, it's like a few secondary and independent sources, or, alternatively, a larger number of primary and independent sources, are what give notability. In that sense, it may be less of "a strong preference" than an effect upon how many sources are needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps independence is "required without exception", and secondary sources are "normally required" or "extremely helpful" or some other strong but not absolute language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still somewhat in "thinking out loud" mode, but I like the concept that independence is of particular importance here. In a way, it's like a few secondary and independent sources, or, alternatively, a larger number of primary and independent sources, are what give notability. In that sense, it may be less of "a strong preference" than an effect upon how many sources are needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps something like: "To demonstrate that an article topic is notable, coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is required (with a strong preference for coverage in independent secondary sources)." Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- So this conversation is not unduly archived and forgotten, I have formulated a specific proposal along the lines of the above. You will note that I am targeting the GNG specifically, because I believe that is the area that requires the most attention. The changes are as follows: (1) the addition of the word "secondary" to the definition of general notability, (2) a paragraph describing what secondary sources are (largely based on a recent discussion at WT:OR), & (3) a change that says sources must be "published and accessible", where some information about secondary sources used to be. Compare this with what we currently have at WP:GNG. As usual, I would appreciate any thoughts; particularly, if this is "too much", which is a valid idea to consider. My hope is that we may clarify this issue for both readers and editors.
General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- "Secondary" means sources that are an author's own thinking based on other sources. They contain interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from other sources. While independent sources provide the best evidence of notability, secondary sources can help establish that a topic has received sufficient attention to be notable.
- "Sources",[2] must be published and accessible. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
- ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.
In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.
) is plainly trivial. - ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
- ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
- ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
NTox · talk 02:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have two reactions:
- In the "Sources" section, I think that "accessible" will lead to problems. People will say that this wording contradicts what follows, about not needing to be in English or online. Instead, I'd change it to "verifiable", linked to WP:V.
- I'm a little uncomfortable with the way that "secondary" ends up being placed above "independent", even though we go on to describe independent sources as "the best evidence of notability". It creates uncertainty as to the degree to which secondary sources are required or just recommended. Currently GNG discusses the issue within the explanation of "Sources". It might be better to leave "secondary" out of the opening sentence, and instead, explain it in more detail under "Sources".
- --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- You have some valid points, especially the concern about secondary being defined before independent. (To be frank, I had that thought too as I was hitting the save button). The reason I actually put it there is because the words are currently being defined in the order they were presented in the definition. I may be less concerned about the 'accessible' term than some (because enwiki AFAIK defines 'accessible' pretty loosely, cf. Wikipedia:Published#Accessible), but I have no strong feelings about keeping it there. My only qualm about saying 'sources should be verifiable' is that it's not actually the sources that need to be verifiable, it's the material in the Wikipedia page that must be able to be verified, with sources. Of course this is a bit Vulcan of me to suggest, but 'reliable' might be better. Since this discussion began, I have had conflicted thoughts about suggesting the addition of 'secondary' to the definition with its own explanation, vs. simply adding more detail in the 'sources' section. My main concern about the latter is that most people tend to cite the definition alone in AfD debates, without seemingly reading the fine print . . after all, we already described secondary sources there, but it seems to largely go unnoticed. That's what led me to propose the former, but I would like to hear some more thoughts. I admit that another benefit of adding 'secondary' to the definition is that I think it would go a long way in (re)teaching our community the difference between secondary and independent. NTox · talk 23:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can only think of awkward ways of addressing this concern: "Sources that are independent of the subject and also secondary" is probably the least objectionable idea I've had. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- You have some valid points, especially the concern about secondary being defined before independent. (To be frank, I had that thought too as I was hitting the save button). The reason I actually put it there is because the words are currently being defined in the order they were presented in the definition. I may be less concerned about the 'accessible' term than some (because enwiki AFAIK defines 'accessible' pretty loosely, cf. Wikipedia:Published#Accessible), but I have no strong feelings about keeping it there. My only qualm about saying 'sources should be verifiable' is that it's not actually the sources that need to be verifiable, it's the material in the Wikipedia page that must be able to be verified, with sources. Of course this is a bit Vulcan of me to suggest, but 'reliable' might be better. Since this discussion began, I have had conflicted thoughts about suggesting the addition of 'secondary' to the definition with its own explanation, vs. simply adding more detail in the 'sources' section. My main concern about the latter is that most people tend to cite the definition alone in AfD debates, without seemingly reading the fine print . . after all, we already described secondary sources there, but it seems to largely go unnoticed. That's what led me to propose the former, but I would like to hear some more thoughts. I admit that another benefit of adding 'secondary' to the definition is that I think it would go a long way in (re)teaching our community the difference between secondary and independent. NTox · talk 23:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
New section: "Notable topics do not require a separate article"
While it is clear that once a topic is presumed notable per GNG or an SNG that we allow it its own stand-alone article, we should have advice that it is not required that a notable topic have its own stand-alone article.
The reasons for not making a stand alone article include if a topic just passes notability and is better discussed in the context of a larger topic; if multiple notable topics together form a collection that is notable of itself, or as a means of putting together very notable (clearly have own topic), weakly notable, and non-notable topics of the same type/categoriation into a single list (ala the Pokemon lists).
I think the advice is common sense, but it is also not documented anywhere that I'm aware of. It should be said as what can sometimes happen is where SNGs insist that a separate article is necessary when the overall topic area is better served by collective articles of the semi-notable topics, until such a time that more notability can be demonstrated. Redirects and disambiguation pages are cheap so we should not be scared of these. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this covered in the lead? "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."
- I don't object to an expansion; if you search the archives for
european chicken
you'll find some related discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to offer more advice with examples to give reasons for not creating a new article. Yes, it's in the lead, but I see it get ignored all the time because "Oh, this topic MUST have a new article." mentalities. Probably moreso at something like NEVENT or BLP than other areas. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to a new section on this. Are you thinking of something like this?
Not all valid topics result in a separate article Notability (qualifying for a separate, stand-alone article) requires more than sufficient independent sources. Topics must also comply with WP:NOT and editors' judgement about what best serves our readers. Common reasons for merging topics together include:
- if editors believe that the topic is better discussed in the context of a larger topic;
- if multiple notable topics together form a collection that is notable of itself, or
- as a means of putting together very notable (clearly have own topic), weakly notable, and non-notable topics of the same type into a single list.
- It might also be worth looking at WP:WHYN to see whether we can better address this issue there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not thrilled on that approach. I want to make it's clear that we are talking about an option to creating a stand-alone article, already based on the presumption that the topic is notable. It is important to touch/remind about other content policies preventing standalones but for purposes here I also assume that those other content policies aren't an issue. Something more like While presumed notability is a requirement for a stand-alone article, not all topics that are presumed notable need to have a stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Not required" if taken at face value is a pretty silly restatement of the obvious. I'm assuming that what we really mean is "not necessarily a good idea" , or "might be a bad idea due to other considerations". If so, we should probably say what we mean. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, is "presumed notability" really a requirement? It seems to me that once you've demonstrated notability (that a topic qualifies for a separate article), then you no longer have "presumed" notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We presume notability because it can be challenged later, reflecting how consensus can change. Articles that have sourcing that just puts them into the GNG today may not be considered appropriate years later. Passing an SNG criteria presumes notability for that facet, but if no other details can be located, having a stand-alone article can be challenged. We never bless a topic as being "notable", though there are certainly topics that far far far demonstrate their notability and likely will never be challenged. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm probably just not understanding something, but it would be helpful to me to see some sort of examples or explanation of potential kinds of pages that would be covered here: those that pass notability and do not run afoul of other policies or guidelines, but for which it just wouldn't be a good idea to have a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- One example is Music of the Final Fantasy VII series (and the others in the series). Every album on that list is likely notable for its own article but the set is better discussed as a whole. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that describes something that can be characterized in a specific way: subjects that are specific examples of a larger subject, where it may be sufficient to cover them in a page about the larger subject. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe an addition to the page that is framed that way could be something to work with. Are there other examples that would not fall within that characterization? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- My favorite example is Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming. There are dozens or hundreds of sources, but it's really more suitable in Poultry farming#Antibiotics or a similar article, or (if you wanted to have a whole article on a narrow subject) in an article that discusses worldwide practices rather than specifically European ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm relieved to see that it's a red link! The pattern that I'm beginning to see is that a page can satisfy notability, satisfy the other policies and guidelines, but still be treated better as a section of an existing, broader-topic, page, rather than be given its own standalone treatment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we are talking about topics that shouldn't even be covered as parts of other pages, right? Near the top of this talk thread, WhatamIdoing quoted (in green) two sentences from the existing lead. How about inserting, after the first of those sentences and before the second, a new sentence: "Some topics that satisfy this guideline are better suited to being covered as sections of existing pages that cover broader topics."? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- We're talking about good, appropriate, encyclopedic information. It's stuff that belongs here at Wikipedia, just not necessarily in its own article (or in some cases, in its own doomed WP:PERMASTUB). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm relieved to see that it's a red link! The pattern that I'm beginning to see is that a page can satisfy notability, satisfy the other policies and guidelines, but still be treated better as a section of an existing, broader-topic, page, rather than be given its own standalone treatment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we are talking about topics that shouldn't even be covered as parts of other pages, right? Near the top of this talk thread, WhatamIdoing quoted (in green) two sentences from the existing lead. How about inserting, after the first of those sentences and before the second, a new sentence: "Some topics that satisfy this guideline are better suited to being covered as sections of existing pages that cover broader topics."? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- My favorite example is Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming. There are dozens or hundreds of sources, but it's really more suitable in Poultry farming#Antibiotics or a similar article, or (if you wanted to have a whole article on a narrow subject) in an article that discusses worldwide practices rather than specifically European ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that describes something that can be characterized in a specific way: subjects that are specific examples of a larger subject, where it may be sufficient to cover them in a page about the larger subject. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe an addition to the page that is framed that way could be something to work with. Are there other examples that would not fall within that characterization? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- One example is Music of the Final Fantasy VII series (and the others in the series). Every album on that list is likely notable for its own article but the set is better discussed as a whole. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm probably just not understanding something, but it would be helpful to me to see some sort of examples or explanation of potential kinds of pages that would be covered here: those that pass notability and do not run afoul of other policies or guidelines, but for which it just wouldn't be a good idea to have a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We presume notability because it can be challenged later, reflecting how consensus can change. Articles that have sourcing that just puts them into the GNG today may not be considered appropriate years later. Passing an SNG criteria presumes notability for that facet, but if no other details can be located, having a stand-alone article can be challenged. We never bless a topic as being "notable", though there are certainly topics that far far far demonstrate their notability and likely will never be challenged. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, is "presumed notability" really a requirement? It seems to me that once you've demonstrated notability (that a topic qualifies for a separate article), then you no longer have "presumed" notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Not required" if taken at face value is a pretty silly restatement of the obvious. I'm assuming that what we really mean is "not necessarily a good idea" , or "might be a bad idea due to other considerations". If so, we should probably say what we mean. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- "judgement about what best serves our readers"? That means people would just argue to eliminate things they don't like, despite them meeting all requirements for an article. Against any such addition. Dream Focus 10:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... the lead does state: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Since this is mentioned in the lede, I think it might be helpful to expand on that statement somewhere in the main body of the guideline... to include some advice as to when using discretion to merge or group would be appropriate (and when it would be inappropriate). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been mulling this issue, and I increasingly think it's actually a very important one. But of course we have to get it right, and if we do get it right, it won't be CREEP. Above, WhatamIdoing replied to me that we are talking about "good, appropriate, encyclopedic information... that belongs here at Wikipedia", and we are, indeed. So the question is how to differentiate between:
- (A) "good, appropriate, encyclopedic information that belongs here at Wikipedia, and merits a standalone page" and:
- (B) "good, appropriate, encyclopedic information that belongs here at Wikipedia, but that should be a section within a broader page, rather than a standalone page by itself"
Above, examples cited have been Music of the Final Fantasy VII series that contains sections about individual albums, and Poultry farming#Antibiotics in lieu of individual pages about antibiotic use on each continent. I think it's pretty reasonable to argue that we wouldn't gain much by having separate pages on each continent. But on the other hand, we have President of the United States, but we also have individual pages about each President, and we have Nobel Prize, but we also have individual pages about individual Nobel laureates. And no reasonable person would argue that we shouldn't have those individual pages!
I realized that, at the same time as this discussion, I've been in a discussion about a neuroscience-related page, where there is a question about having individual standalone pages on each of about a half-dozen theorems about how that topic works. None of the theorems is accepted by the source material as proven, but each gets plenty of source material. I think the consensus view has been that each theorem should be a section of the broader topic page (and that's what I think), but there's a significant minority view that each theorem should have its own separate page. And as I think about it, this issue is really what went on in the early (before my time) epic discussions about how many Pokemon pages we need. So it's an issue that really does keep coming up.
So, is there a straightforward way to distinguish (A) from (B), that we could put here without it being CREEP? In a way, it goes to WP:Content forking, in that it's a question of whether or not giving each sub-topic its own page improperly gives rise to giving each sub-topic its own... what? POV? Turf? UNDUE weight? Maybe it's just "editorial judgment", but if there is something more objective and definable, it might be very useful to define it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- A key thing is that this is not meant to be a hard line test. It is a suggestion and should not be taken as any rule or whatnot, in addressing points raised by DreamFocus and Warden. What it should be taken is that if I see a situation where I think smaller article B can easily fit in larger A, a merge suggestion should not be treated as a slight against the article's creator (as I have seen happen at times). Redirects to specific sectors or anchors are cheap and can be used plentifully to locate the merged article. This situation should never cause an AFD to be started to remove the weakly-notable article (though if a merge does occur and the smaller page is not an effective search term, a XFD for the redirect page should occur, but that's just maintenance). Partial guiding focus can be had from Summary Style, which does balance all the issues raised. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK then, that takes the discussion in a somewhat different direction. Are we, then, talking about a sort of behavioral guideline, one that points to specific kinds of situations where editors should not ABF or be offended by suggestions that notable topics not be given standalone pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessary say behavior, because I cannot see how this advice would incur disruptive behavior. I would consider it a counterarguement in merge discussions when someone tries to argue "but it's notable!", as well as passing advice to new editors that create a lot of short articles that could be better as part of a larger one. But the advice does need to be given in light of notability in general as a metric for stand-alone articles. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- How then would we articulate that advice? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessary say behavior, because I cannot see how this advice would incur disruptive behavior. I would consider it a counterarguement in merge discussions when someone tries to argue "but it's notable!", as well as passing advice to new editors that create a lot of short articles that could be better as part of a larger one. But the advice does need to be given in light of notability in general as a metric for stand-alone articles. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK then, that takes the discussion in a somewhat different direction. Are we, then, talking about a sort of behavioral guideline, one that points to specific kinds of situations where editors should not ABF or be offended by suggestions that notable topics not be given standalone pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this would be a perfect place to introduce the concept that a specific notability guideline for a topic area can include guidance on when not to create an article. Such things as not including high-school athletes despite the fact that you can find regional coverage, excluding businesses that only have coverage in local papers, song articles when the song has never charted or won an award, etc. The use of subject-specific notability guidelines to preclude article generation has always existed, but never explicitly spelled out in this guideline.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just making a timestamp here for the archive bot, because I don't want this discussion thread to disappear. I'm not sure where we're at now, in terms of practical/concrete improvements to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
To restart this based on the discussion:
- "A notable topic does not require a separate article" seems acceptable advice, and a natural extension of what we already state at the top of WP:N.
- The rationale suggests that there may be two main reasons: to have one smaller notable article be described in the context of a larger notable article as to provide better context and comprehension of both topics, or where several smaller notable articles (and perhaps non-notable topics) are discussed as a natural group where the notability of the group improves the article.
- Advice given should point to any existing applicable guidance like summary style.
- Advice should be given to look towards specific SNGs (and possibly specific Wikiprojects) when not to create articles on notable topics.
I think all that's left is a matter of wording for this. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, I agree with that. I'd add that it might be worth saying that an editorial decision not to have a separate article is not the same thing as casting aspersions on the importance of the subject. I'm thinking that we could cover all of this in a single section, as opposed to spreading it over multiple places on the page. Does that seem right? Any thoughts on where, on the page, we should add it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, that's another point to add, that the mere suggestion of a merge of a notable topic to a larger notable article should be in no way taken to disparage the smaller topic. And yes, this should be a single section beyond the current existing summary at the top of teh guideline. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good! I'm thinking that we could insert it after "Why we have these requirements". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, that's another point to add, that the mere suggestion of a merge of a notable topic to a larger notable article should be in no way taken to disparage the smaller topic. And yes, this should be a single section beyond the current existing summary at the top of teh guideline. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, I agree with that. I'd add that it might be worth saying that an editorial decision not to have a separate article is not the same thing as casting aspersions on the importance of the subject. I'm thinking that we could cover all of this in a single section, as opposed to spreading it over multiple places on the page. Does that seem right? Any thoughts on where, on the page, we should add it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Drafts
Here is my attempt at a first draft. We can work on it here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required (Draft 1)
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that passes the notability requirement. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject guidelines may provide information on how to make these decisions in particular subject areas.
- I would see if we can find strong examples of the two cases ( I pointed to the Final Fantasy VII albums as one case of the latter). Also, "passes the notability requirement" should be instead "presumed notable" - I have a feeling saying "requirement" will make people treat this (Better or worse) like a policy with that langauge. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Those are good ideas. Here is my stab at addressing them. I used a slightly different wording for "requirement", so please see if that works or not. (My reasoning is to make it more reader-friendly for users who get stuck on the concept of "presumed".) I came up with a quick example for the first case, but I have a feeling there are loads of better examples, so suggestions would be welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required (Draft 2)
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that passes satisfies the notability requirement guideline. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#PETA Asia-Pacific, for example). Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject guidelines may provide information on how to make these decisions in particular subject areas.
- Instead of the PETA example, would Plant perception (physiology)#Plant intelligence be a better example? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- What I think may be a better idea just occurred to me. I think I'd much prefer to use, as a pair, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip. Taken together, they more clearly illustrate notable topics within a larger page, and how the larger page provides better context. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of the PETA example, would Plant perception (physiology)#Plant intelligence be a better example? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just to throw a wrench into this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Episode VII (2nd nomination) is an interesting thing to consider. The film (announced yesterday as part of the Disney buyout of Lucasfilm) clearly is presumed notable, but there's so little information on it as to make a new article a poor choice. This is where something like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER (an essay! be aware!) comes into play. I think this adds a third case, where "A future event or an occurrence may clearly be notable before it happens such as the 2020 Summer Olympics, but otherwise if information is scarce at the time, discussion may be suited to a larger encompassing article."
- Also, I would add something like "Redirection pages and Disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them." --MASEM (t) 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Overall this looks okay to me. I've been happy talking about "the notability standards" recently, which avoids the whole policy/guideline/requirement/rule language. I think I'd put this above WHYN, rather than immediately after it. What do you think about adding potential length (avoiding doomed WP:PERMASTUBs) as a reason for choosing a larger subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required (Draft 3)
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability standards. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). A future event may clearly be notable before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics), but if information is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL). Also, a subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub. In each of these situations, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas.
- Here's a revision, in which I've tried to incorporate everything so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- In re the first sentence: is editorial judgment not part of the notability standards? I thought that notability = sources X NOT X judgment, and so when editorial judgment opposed a separate page, it didn't qualify for a separate page.
- Otherwise, it looks good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have rarely seen "editorial judgement" used as a reason to declare an article non-notable. In fact, the way the logic should go is:
- 1) Determine presumption of notability from sources - at which point we believe that the topic can merit its own page
- 2) Determine if that standalone page would fail any NOT clause (this is not about notability anymore)
- 3) Determine if there is a better way to present the information in an existing or a larger article (again, not able notability anymore).
- In other words "ability to have a standalone page" = sources + NOT + editorial judgement. But notability is only taken from reviewing the sources. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno about that: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." It seems to me that "ability to have a standalone page" == notability, and that therefore notability == sources × NOT × editorial judgement, not just sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, by logic, meeting wp:notability is A condition for having a stand alone article. Since it is the most often-invoked/reviewed condition, I think that some folks loosely think of meeting wp:notability being synonymous with overall "able to have a separate article" but that is not precisely correct. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I think we want to avoid is having "editorial judgement" become a guideline that can be evoked at AFD, as that is going to upset a lot of people (see previous comments by DreamFocus). The only two facets that should be used to start an AFD that involve notability are the lack of significant coverage/failure to meet an SNG, and falling under what we are NOT - both suggesting page deletion. Editorial judgement is most likely meaning a merge and not an aspect to be approached at AFD (though a well-intended AFD for deletion can end up as as a consensus to merge, it just shouldn't start off as such). Thus, why this section is meant as advice and not direct guidance. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Although I understand the points about where editorial judgment comes into play relative to where notability is assessed, I don't really see (maybe it's just me, maybe I'm missing something) how the wording of the second sentence of Draft 3 is a problem, or what anyone is suggesting as a different way to say it. (After all, that sentence is taking it as a given that the "topic" has already been presumed to be notable, but editors are considering not making a standalone page about the "topic".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I think we want to avoid is having "editorial judgement" become a guideline that can be evoked at AFD, as that is going to upset a lot of people (see previous comments by DreamFocus). The only two facets that should be used to start an AFD that involve notability are the lack of significant coverage/failure to meet an SNG, and falling under what we are NOT - both suggesting page deletion. Editorial judgement is most likely meaning a merge and not an aspect to be approached at AFD (though a well-intended AFD for deletion can end up as as a consensus to merge, it just shouldn't start off as such). Thus, why this section is meant as advice and not direct guidance. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I figure I'll wait another day or two for any further comments, and if there are no objections I'll go ahead and add Draft 3 to the guideline page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. If it needs tweaked later, then we can do that later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. If it needs tweaked later, then we can do that later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Reverted
- You had two people clearly state they were opposed to this already. You need more people to participate before adding that in since it changes things so greatly. Mention it on the village voice or somewhere to get more participates. What you are basically saying now is "Meeting the notability requirements doesn't matter, you can still have whatever random group of strangers shows up to participate, decide to eliminate something anyway because they don't like it." Every notability guideline page should have its talk page mention this discussion for more participation, since it basically lets people ignore all of them at will. Dream Focus 19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- But that's not what it says, you're misreading it, and it already reflects standard practice. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The top already says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." You don't need any more than that. Dream Focus 19:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- We're not changing anything from that, we are only adding advice as to when to consider it, which as best as I know doesn't exist in any form in WP policy. That's completely reasonable and within standard practice. Since we're only expanding without changing whatever is already on the page, your opposition to it is pointless. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- No need adding that much text to something unrelated to an article page that exist to explain what notability is and how it is determined. They can link to the page on mergers if they want to learn about doing that. Dream Focus 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- We're not changing anything from that, we are only adding advice as to when to consider it, which as best as I know doesn't exist in any form in WP policy. That's completely reasonable and within standard practice. Since we're only expanding without changing whatever is already on the page, your opposition to it is pointless. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The top already says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." You don't need any more than that. Dream Focus 19:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- But that's not what it says, you're misreading it, and it already reflects standard practice. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Dream Focus, I know from previous discussions that you feel very strongly about inclusion criteria, but please give me a little more credit for good faith than what you have been saying here. You and one other editor made very brief negative comments about Masem's early suggestions on the topic a couple of weeks ago, and the discussion since then was entirely supportive until just now, when you reverted the addition and said these things here. This page is a guideline, not a policy. I very deliberately let time go by before implementing anything, and neither you nor anyone else objected then. At this point, you, a single user, have reverted a change that was supported by multiple editors. I've read your comments here, and it seems to me that you overstate what the addition would do, and you basically are opposed to any kind of language that acknowledges that there are, sometimes, situations where a standalone article is not needed. You would like to have broader discussion? That's fine with me. I'm going to start an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you expect people to repeat themselves constantly for weeks? I'm opposed to anything that will be quoted in AFDs as an excuse for people to delete articles they don't like. There is no reason to have all of that here on the notability guideline page, instead of the merge page where it belongs. "and the discussion since then was entirely supportive", by four people, with only two people against it. That's not really a proper consensus. Dream Focus 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Repeat themselves constantly for weeks? No, of course not. But a little AGF would always be nice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I see edit warring over the paragraph, so I've requested that the page be full-protected. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- How is that edit warring? Stop being all melodramatic. Dream Focus 23:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you gotta ask... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC on standalone pages
Should the following section be added to Wikipedia:Notability, after "Notability is not temporary" and before "Why we have these requirements"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm temporarily stopping the RfC. Please see #discussion of draft 4, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- When a standalone page is not required
Although notable topics qualify for pages on Wikipedia, a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability standards. Editorial judgment goes into the decision about whether or not to create a separate page, and a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). A future event may clearly be notable before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics), but if information is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL). Also, a subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub. In each of these situations, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas.
There is discussion about the question directly above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support addition. Reyk YO! 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- A well written explanation of a complex issue... well done. Support addition. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, as I've said above. This should promotes mergers rather than deletions in borderline cases and more complete, contextually appropriate, non-WP:Content forked articles in all cases. It should also reduce confusion among less experienced editors, who frequently believe that if we don't want an entirely separate, very narrow article, then the subject can't be mentioned anywhere at all. We might not want an article about Antibiotic use in European chicken farms, but we can certainly discuss all of that information in our articles on Poultry farming, antibiotic use, and other relevant articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you made a very good point: that this addition will tend to encourage merge over deletion. I hadn't thought of that, but it's definitely true. (I think it's already obvious, but I support the addition.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if we can include something that strongly warns against deletion to handle such pages (per Dream Focus' concern). --MASEM (t) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm biased at this point, but I think the concerns are unfounded, and the existing text does, as I just said, actually help in this regard. I'm also disinclined to "warn" editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if we can include something that strongly warns against deletion to handle such pages (per Dream Focus' concern). --MASEM (t) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you made a very good point: that this addition will tend to encourage merge over deletion. I hadn't thought of that, but it's definitely true. (I think it's already obvious, but I support the addition.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, looks good, makes sense, will be helpful. J04n(talk page) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose the current text, although it got me thinking for a while. Even if I sympathize with the goal (I've written an essay myself about the subject), the approach is misguided and it will encourage removing information from WP: either by people insisting to delete the article instead of merging, or because the content in the merged target article is prone to be removed as WP:UNDUE weight (I've seen this too often).
- If something along this lines is added to the guideline, it must be much less idealistic and well-meaning and much more practical, describing exactly how and when a single article is to be merged; "editorial judgment" is utterly useless in guidelines to guide discussion, so this paragraph does nothing to help those mergers and a lot to undermine the GNG. As a collection of advice on when to merge, I agree with DGG that it would be better added to the Merge guideline, not in notability.
- I'm also concerned that the text describes when a notable article should not have an article, but does nothing to explain when it should have a short article as the better outcome, instead of being merged. As such, the guideline is imbalanced and at the very least it requires further tweaking before being admissible. I think it's time to create a new guideline for "stand-alone articles" that is separate from WP:N describing the best practices for short articles, and the best way to merge them when the best outcome is to have them grouped. Diego (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Except, when is a small stubby article better than merging the content into a larger more comprehensive article? There never really is a time for this - stubs are okay in some cases, but as articles mature, there are always better options. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- When is it better? 1) When the short article is not stubby and 2) when there isn't a larger, more comprehensive article covering the topic. Never and always are such strong words...
- I've recently defended an article for a classic game that achieved short but reliable coverage, enough to create a well-balanced article. It was suggested at AfD to merge this game with other similar games for the same computer to have a more solid article with respect to notability; but since that encompassing article doesn't exist, and creating it was out of scope for an AfD, that wouldn't be a viable outcome for the deletion discussion, and the article is likely to be deleted even if it satisfies GNG to the letter.
- I never understood the widespread hate towards short NPOV articles, really. Merging them is an option sometimes, but not always. If there are too many of them in the same class, the best solution is having many short articles and a category and/or navigation template to find them and provide context. The guideline should highlight a short article as the preferred option in some cases. Diego (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the text does not say "short articles must be merged", I'm not seeing the problem outside a lack of explicitness. Also, in the case of that AFD, note that this is going on regardless if this proposed text is present or not; regardless of what WP:N says, it will always come down to consensus, so that's a non-starter as an argument against this. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You and I know that "a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability" will be used at AfDs to defend "a standalone page is not required at all" - thus Delete the poorly written article. At least if it stated "short articles should be merged if they're otherwise going to be deleted", that would be an improvement over the current version. Diego (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense, it's talking about mergers. If a parent article already contains all the information of the stub, that leads to the question of why you would want to keep the stub which provides less context. Is it about keeping the information or some meta concept about article existence? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You and I know that "a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability" will be used at AfDs to defend "a standalone page is not required at all" - thus Delete the poorly written article. At least if it stated "short articles should be merged if they're otherwise going to be deleted", that would be an improvement over the current version. Diego (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the text does not say "short articles must be merged", I'm not seeing the problem outside a lack of explicitness. Also, in the case of that AFD, note that this is going on regardless if this proposed text is present or not; regardless of what WP:N says, it will always come down to consensus, so that's a non-starter as an argument against this. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Except, when is a small stubby article better than merging the content into a larger more comprehensive article? There never really is a time for this - stubs are okay in some cases, but as articles mature, there are always better options. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The top of the guideline already says This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. You don't need any more than that. This addition at the very start that even if it meets the GNG, it doesn't matter, its up to "Editorial judgment" to determine if it should be an article or not. So whatever random group of people notice and show up to comment, will determine whether an article stays are not, and people who just don't like something, such as articles of a certain type, will just rampage around wiping out articles they don't like in hordes. "I don't like it" will become the only reason necessary for deletion. This happens too often already in AFDs, we certainly don't need to be encouraging it to happen even more so. It'll come down to some saying "It meets the general notability guidelines clearly" and others saying "that doesn't matter, since my friends and I don't like it, so we'll delete it anyway". Dream Focus 08:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you're opposing the expansion of something that WP:N already says, and that we've already said that actions relating to this article do not involve deletion, the opposition here makes no sense. Further, to complain about a group of editors showing up to AFD to delete articles they don't like is no different than something like the Article Rescue Squadron propping up articles to be kept. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- See my comments above. Notability is not the place to expand whether a topic merits a stand-alone article or a merger; the arguments introduced in the new paragraph are orthogonal to having enough sources, and should not be conflated. And the current wording leaves lots of cases that haven't been tested (such as not having a proper place to merge the content). In articles with marginal notability, it's easy to see how the proposed section could be used to support deletion even if that's not the intended goal; because "notability is not clear", "there isn't a good place to merge the content" AND "a standalone page is not required for every topic". That last bit is dangerous material to fuel AfDs, and accepting it as a guideline before its effects are tested in the wild is a no-no. Let's have a separate essay for stand-alone articles where all these concerns can be properly explored. Diego (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your last point, that "a standalone page is not required for every topic" being a problem at AFD, is nonsense because WP:N has already said this forever as Dream Focus points out in their opposition; if it was going to be a problem, it would have reared its head by now. In fact, to me, I find that the opposite is true, that people insist that one you show an article is notable, it must have a standalone article, making it difficult to rationally discuss merge options even though the merge would not lose any content and would be better for all content/articles involved. Again, I stress that we're not creating any new practice here; this is documenting what already is done, but stressing that this options should not be considered "evil" as some would take them. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- True, WP:N has always said that. Then consider that the problem is not that it adds something new, but that it's stressing that idea (not having the article) without considering the alternatives, in a way that wasn't highlighted before. The whole proposed section (at least as you defend it) appears to me as implying the notion that short articles are bad, and I strongly oppose that idea. Thus, the section must fairly balance when to keep and when to merge, or not exist at all. Diego (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your last point, that "a standalone page is not required for every topic" being a problem at AFD, is nonsense because WP:N has already said this forever as Dream Focus points out in their opposition; if it was going to be a problem, it would have reared its head by now. In fact, to me, I find that the opposite is true, that people insist that one you show an article is notable, it must have a standalone article, making it difficult to rationally discuss merge options even though the merge would not lose any content and would be better for all content/articles involved. Again, I stress that we're not creating any new practice here; this is documenting what already is done, but stressing that this options should not be considered "evil" as some would take them. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, there is no reason to expand that on this page. The way it is worded is far different, and will be used differently. And this is quite different than what the ARS does, we finding reliable sources whenever possible that cover subjects, and prove they are notable. You shouldn't try to delete something because you don't like it, that has never been an acceptable reason. And even articles that are long and well referenced, people still try to delete because they don't like the subject. Proving that they meet the notability guidelines, is what convinces a closing administrator to keep the article. Saying meeting the GNG doesn't matter at all, and you can have people nominating the same article time and again until they get enough random people to notice and participate who think the way they do, in order to get articles they don't like deleted, is going to cause all sorts of problems. Dream Focus 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are the only one saying deletion here. If someone tries to use the suggested advice to nominate an article they think should be merged at AFD, that AFD should be immediately closed as a speedy keep and the nominator trouted for not using the merge process to discuss that. On the other hand, with or without this advice, we are not going to be able to stop an AFD nomination where the editor insists that deletion needs to happen when notability is weak - this already happens now. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- See my comments above. Notability is not the place to expand whether a topic merits a stand-alone article or a merger; the arguments introduced in the new paragraph are orthogonal to having enough sources, and should not be conflated. And the current wording leaves lots of cases that haven't been tested (such as not having a proper place to merge the content). In articles with marginal notability, it's easy to see how the proposed section could be used to support deletion even if that's not the intended goal; because "notability is not clear", "there isn't a good place to merge the content" AND "a standalone page is not required for every topic". That last bit is dangerous material to fuel AfDs, and accepting it as a guideline before its effects are tested in the wild is a no-no. Let's have a separate essay for stand-alone articles where all these concerns can be properly explored. Diego (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you're opposing the expansion of something that WP:N already says, and that we've already said that actions relating to this article do not involve deletion, the opposition here makes no sense. Further, to complain about a group of editors showing up to AFD to delete articles they don't like is no different than something like the Article Rescue Squadron propping up articles to be kept. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Seems to me like useful guidance. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Merging topics in stubs into larger articles ensures what otherwise might have been a stub is presented in a larger context. To make a good encyclopedia editorial judgement is required, creating stubs willy nilly doesn't help anyone when the same information can be put into an existing article in a way that makes sense.
- rant: We have over 4 million articles on wikipedia, of which 2 million are stubs (from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_type_sizes/data and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Statistics). We have a relatively fixed number of editors. On wikipedia, articles about villages, hamlets are usually kept WP:OUTCOMES. There are an estimated 2.7 million villages in the world (src Bank, World (2006). 2006 world information and communications for development report : trends and policies for the information society. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. p. 127. ISBN 0821363468.). There are around 30 million species Species#Numbers_of_species, around 2 million ([1][2]) of those are described and named and thus are kept at AfD WP:OUTCOMES. So we have a possible amount of intrinsically notable articles as 4.7 million just considering towns and species, most likely doomed to eternal stubdom. Species which have no coverage beyond confirmation etc belong at species:Main_Page. There are people who get lists of villages, and then create each and every single one, what is wrong with simply just tabulating the info in a list of villages? We don't need all these stubs that will never be expanded and only face possible vandalism; we can have the exact same information but just organized in a different way. We are still growing by 30,000 articles a month (commons:File:Enwikipediagrowth6.PNG), while the number of editors stays about the same.
- IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: For two reasons, 1) this language
a standalone page is not required for every topic that satisfies the notability standards.
is very misleading as there is no Requirement to have an article on a notable subject anyway. So, how can we say an article is not required. If this effort succeeds, I would strongly suggest the wording be changed toa standalone page
2) I find the words editorial judgement in this language to be problematic. Whose editorial judgement? The editors who think they own articles and suppress any addition they don't agree with, or the judgement of new editors who might be bringing new insights into stubs, etc. I think this opens up a potential minefield, especially in topic areas where there are social, political, geo-political and cultural battlegrounds already. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)ismay not berequiredjustified for every topic that satisfies the notability standards.- On the first, the wording change is fine. On the second, it doesn't matter who, it just that the end result should be supported by consensus discussion. There's no can of worms here because MERGE already allows editors to engage in this if in article areas that are battlefield-like in nature. Again, to stress: what is being added documents existing practices already, and does not create any new suggested practice. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, the current guideline refers twice to editors' judgment, and twice to editors' discretion; I think it's a pretty common theme in guidelines, and I don't see how it could reasonably be interpreted to mean anything other than "editors should do what seems best to them, in light of Wikipedia guidance, and if there's disagreement, they should talk about it until a consensus develops." Unless you categorically disapprove of any guideline or policy that doesn't offer 100% ironclad rules about what to do in any given situation (which would seem to include any guideline, because guidelines aren't policies, and also any policy, because WP:IAR exists, and also WP:IAR), your second objection doesn't make much sense to me. (The first sounds like a good change, and I'd be surprised if anyone strongly disagreed with it.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support All too often I see editors at AFD that seem to believe that once notability is demonstrated, a standalone article is inevitably justifiable, to the point where you get editors screaming that no deletion is possible under any justification once they have come up with two reliable sources for the information. A standalone section of WP:N that emphasises and explains why that isn't true would be useful.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC extended discussion
I think it might be helpful to create this space for more extended discussion of the issues that come up in the RfC. It seems clear to me that, so far, quite a few editors like the proposal. For the moment, I want to continue here the discussions that already have begun above, with the two editors who have, so far in the RfC, opposed the proposal.
I know Dream Focus feels very strongly here, but I'm not finding your arguments very persuasive. Yes, people show up all the time at AfD, making WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. The right way to counter their arguments is to point out that they are arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is widely regarded as an argument to avoid. Yes, those people will then try to bulk up their weak arguments by misquoting or cherry picking quotes from various guidelines, and yes, it is possible to misrepresent what the paragraph proposed here says. But the right way to respond is to point out that they have misrepresented what it says here. Quote this proposal accurately, and you make the point that merging is better than deletion, and the AfD should be closed as keep.
Diego, you have raised some very thoughtful and astute concerns, and I want to explore whether this proposal can be improved accordingly. I'm receptive to making these ideas part of WP:MERGE, with a link from here, but let's first explore whether we can make something work here. You point out that leaving everything to "editorial judgment" is dangerously vague, and that we should try to make things more specific and instructive. I think that's a good idea, and I'd like to explore whether we can do that. You also point out that we should (in effect, my words not yours) present both POVs, by giving due weight to cases where short pages should be kept as short pages. Again, I think you are right about that, and I'd like to explore revising the proposal accordingly. I can assure you that I, for one, am not what you call a hater of short NPOV articles, and I hope that we can explore, here, these ways of improving the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking of proposing a new draft along those lines and see if the added terms get traction. I'm glad you're open to that possibility. I'm not really opposed to the advice in the RfC draft as such, only to the way it was presented and included in the guideline. I'll try to add tomorrow some new points for consideration (mainly that the content shouldn't be merged to an article with undue weight, that collecting several related notable topics only work when the number of items is not too high, and that a short article sometimes can provide better context for the topic than a merged section in a longer article - and thus be preferred). Diego (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can't reason with these people. You tell them they are misreading what it says, and they'll just say the same about you. You have to have things specific. Such as "Saying you don't think it belongs in the encyclopedia because you don't like that sort of thing or don't find it encyclopedic, is not a valid reason to eliminate something that passes the notability guidelines. If you believe the article's content is perhaps better suited in another article, then go to WP:merge and follow the instructions there. You should not call something a "merge" as an excuse to delete it, and just put a token amount if anything at all in the other article." Had an editor posting all over the place and arguing nonstop trying to get rid of the article for Pizza cheese for instance, just wouldn't let it go, dragging things out, despite all the protest against him. You add this long new section as it is currently written on this guideline page, then it'll just be more difficult to shut people like him up, and more will be hollering the same ridiculous argument of "just because it meets the notability guidelines, doesn't mean we should have an article for it", whenever they really mean is "I personally don't like it, and want it gone." Dream Focus 22:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's simply not a compelling argument because that advice has been part of WP:N for a long time. Does it enable something like the pizza cheese AFD? No - because again, if someone wants something deleted, they will ignore the new advice, just as much as they ignored the original WP:N statement. No one questions that merge discussions are very different from deletion discussions, and that a proper merge shouldn't cause the information in the article being merged to disappear. But all of this exists now without the new paragraph, and that the new paragraph won't change anything in this area. The argument that this paragraph will cause massive change in AFDs is pretty much bogus. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- If its already here, then why stretch things out? There is no possible justification for having that on this page. Put it on the merger page instead, where it belongs. Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because we have the problem in the other direction, editors extremely resistant to merging content, typically on articles they've created or that they have a strong interest in, despite when others point out that there's net benefit to covering a smaller topic within the context of a larger one. Even the suggestion of a merge has been taken as a slight against their work and themselves. But it's also not just about merging, it's about creating articles too so sticking the advice on the merge page isn't appropriate. People need to use more common sense before rushing to creating new articles, when there is definitely an appropriate larger topic to include that information in. Ergo, we can't just toss this advice on the merge page; it is appropriate here to the concept that the presumption of notability allows but does not require a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Masem, that's a good point, about WP:MERGE. Part of what we are trying to address here has to do with creating new pages, and putting it on MERGE would lose that information. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because we have the problem in the other direction, editors extremely resistant to merging content, typically on articles they've created or that they have a strong interest in, despite when others point out that there's net benefit to covering a smaller topic within the context of a larger one. Even the suggestion of a merge has been taken as a slight against their work and themselves. But it's also not just about merging, it's about creating articles too so sticking the advice on the merge page isn't appropriate. People need to use more common sense before rushing to creating new articles, when there is definitely an appropriate larger topic to include that information in. Ergo, we can't just toss this advice on the merge page; it is appropriate here to the concept that the presumption of notability allows but does not require a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- If its already here, then why stretch things out? There is no possible justification for having that on this page. Put it on the merger page instead, where it belongs. Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Diego, thanks, that's great. I look forward to seeing what you present, and I'm pretty confident that it will work. Dream Focus, I find that I can reason with most users who are willing to engage in good faith with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you imagining "bad faith", that I'm somehow against you, or is that just an excuse to dodge responding to what I said? Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not imagining anything, really. You said that you find that there are people you just cannot reason with. I said that I find it generally possible to reason with the people I come across on Wikipedia, and I'm involved in lots of disputed issues. I don't think that you are against me personally, although I think that you disagree with me on the proposal here. And I'm not against you personally, either. If you are not finding my reply to you satisfactory, I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to dodge anything, nor to make any excuses. It does appear that you and I have different discussion styles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think whether other people can be reasoned with is largely a matter of perspective. Note DF's contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A. (2nd nomination), with the associated accusations of bad faith and the insistence that "Notable albums get their own pages". The article (which I could temporarily resurrect as a user page, if necessary), is a poster-boy for the issue we have here, with the reasoning explained in detail at Talk:N.I.N.A.#Redirect discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing you could dig up was from over two and half years ago? An article ended in "No consensus", and then you try to replace it with a redirect and when you fail you send it to AFD a second time, only a day after the first. You also apparently removed much of the original content before the second AFD, and since the article isn't there anymore, I can't really judge that though. Don't really care since it happened so long ago. I argued to keep it since the article clearly passed the guidelines, and at the time it seemed like a really lame "if I don't get my way, I'll just keep on nominating it until I do" bit seen too often in AFDs. Nothing gained by deleting it. Out of the 4 million Wikipedia articles on the English language Wikipedia, about 3 million of them are of stub size according to a guy posting recently on Jimbo's talk page who had checked all the sizes with a bot. Of course, as I have said, it was two and a half years ago, so I don't remember how much content was left in the actual article, so merge might've made since in that case. If so, it should've just been a merge discussion, and there was never a reason to delete the history of the article when a redirect was placed there. Dream Focus 00:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was just the first example of you dealing with this kind of problem that came to mind, and it was a completely on-point demonstration of the "there's a source, so there has to be a stand-alone article too!" line of reasoning. All the facts necessary for you to revisit your decision are there if you read the large and detailed analysis of why the remaining material was unsuitable instead of dismissing it as "lame".—Kww(talk) 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing you could dig up was from over two and half years ago? An article ended in "No consensus", and then you try to replace it with a redirect and when you fail you send it to AFD a second time, only a day after the first. You also apparently removed much of the original content before the second AFD, and since the article isn't there anymore, I can't really judge that though. Don't really care since it happened so long ago. I argued to keep it since the article clearly passed the guidelines, and at the time it seemed like a really lame "if I don't get my way, I'll just keep on nominating it until I do" bit seen too often in AFDs. Nothing gained by deleting it. Out of the 4 million Wikipedia articles on the English language Wikipedia, about 3 million of them are of stub size according to a guy posting recently on Jimbo's talk page who had checked all the sizes with a bot. Of course, as I have said, it was two and a half years ago, so I don't remember how much content was left in the actual article, so merge might've made since in that case. If so, it should've just been a merge discussion, and there was never a reason to delete the history of the article when a redirect was placed there. Dream Focus 00:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think whether other people can be reasoned with is largely a matter of perspective. Note DF's contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A. (2nd nomination), with the associated accusations of bad faith and the insistence that "Notable albums get their own pages". The article (which I could temporarily resurrect as a user page, if necessary), is a poster-boy for the issue we have here, with the reasoning explained in detail at Talk:N.I.N.A.#Redirect discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not imagining anything, really. You said that you find that there are people you just cannot reason with. I said that I find it generally possible to reason with the people I come across on Wikipedia, and I'm involved in lots of disputed issues. I don't think that you are against me personally, although I think that you disagree with me on the proposal here. And I'm not against you personally, either. If you are not finding my reply to you satisfactory, I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to dodge anything, nor to make any excuses. It does appear that you and I have different discussion styles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you imagining "bad faith", that I'm somehow against you, or is that just an excuse to dodge responding to what I said? Dream Focus 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's simply not a compelling argument because that advice has been part of WP:N for a long time. Does it enable something like the pizza cheese AFD? No - because again, if someone wants something deleted, they will ignore the new advice, just as much as they ignored the original WP:N statement. No one questions that merge discussions are very different from deletion discussions, and that a proper merge shouldn't cause the information in the article being merged to disappear. But all of this exists now without the new paragraph, and that the new paragraph won't change anything in this area. The argument that this paragraph will cause massive change in AFDs is pretty much bogus. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on a new, expanded draft including the concerns expressed at the opposition to the version in the RfC. I'm trying to emphasize actionable measures and decision criteria over subjective measures (whether a topic "merits" an article or not) that will always be a matter of personal opinion and are prone to produce division. I believe the opening sentence ("having a standalone article on Wikipedia is a matter of style") is safer than the previous proposal ("a standalone page is not required for every topic"), which was geared towards not having the article.
In addition to the previous ideas for when a notable topic should still be merged, I've added a new section with reasons for keeping the standalone article. I hope that all these criteria, listed as bullet points, should encourage direct discussion and thus facilitate agreements and consensus-building.
I'm not sure how to proceed to introduce a new draft, given that the previous one is the basis for the RfC and it's already showing some support (as well as opposition). I think it's common to first refine the new proposal to a sensible middle ground and then start a straw poll for each proposal so that clear preferences can be stated. Diego (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Draft 4
- Standalone pages for notable topics
When a topic satisfies the sourcing standards for notability, having a standalone article on Wikipedia is a matter of style and how the available information is best presented. A notable subject can be covered better as part of an article for a broader topic, including context that would be lost on a separate page. Conversely, when there is enough information to create a well balanced article, a separate page provides more room to cover the topic in depth. Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas.
Notable topics as part of larger articles
A topic can be described in a small part of a wider article when there is not enough content for a start class article. In that situation, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them. The topic should be relevant to the content of the target article.
- A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic, as it provides the reader with the wider picture and better explains how the subject relates to the main topic. This is a good solution for topics that are notable but fall under What Wikipedia is not, such as news reports or catalog tables of reasonable size.
- Examples: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example).
- Several related notable topics can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series).
- A future event may clearly be notable before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics), but if information is scarce at the time, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL).
- A subject that is notable, but for which it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to say, may best not be made a permanent stub.
Notable topics as standalone pages
Deciding whether a separate article is needed is often difficult for a notable topic with few reliable sources, or for which sources provide a small amount of distinct information. There are some cases where covering such topic with a short article is still a good idea:
- Enough references describing the topic may exist, and the article is short only because the sources have not been included yet. A well placed stub for a topic with potential to be expanded can entice editors to add content and complete the article with the right format and structure, making it easier than creating the article anew.
- There are cases where many similar notable topics exist and they cannot be collected into a single page, since the resulting article would be too long. A viable option is creating a new list or category for the broad-concept topic and linking the individual articles from it. See Category:Restaurants in New York City for an example.
- Placing the content of a notable topic under a wider article can provide undue weight to it. That can happen with fringe theories or lesser episodes in a biography, in special for biographies of living persons. In those cases, a standalone article for the notable topic is preferred, as the content is likely to be removed from the main article.
- Short articles should provide enough context beyond a summary or simple definition in order to explain how the topic has impacted the world, or how it was received by people that wrote about it. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, so that a reader with no previous knowledge of the topic can get a rough understanding of it. This can be done including attributed value judgments from experts in the field such as reviews, critiques and academic studies. Focusing on the quality of coverage, rather than its quantity, can help to ensure that the significant content required to write a standalone article is available.
- Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns of article size. This means that all the reliable sources can be potentially included as long as they are relevant to a topic. If many independent sources provide a neutral description of the same details, the details are deemed notable and a new spinoff article can be created to hold them. A brief description in summary style can link to it from the main article, providing the same context that would be available if the standalone article didn't exist.
discussion of draft 4
I think this is excellent... but I am not sure whether really fits within the scope of the WP:Notability guideline. Perhaps it would do better as a separate (new) guideline? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that was one of the suggestions already... having a standalone article is different from being notable. Although they've been traditionally conflated in the same guideline, there's no reason why they couldn't be separated. Diego (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah... I would put it this way: being notable is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic (just as being verifiable is a precondition for inclusion of content within an article)... but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic (just as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of content within an article). Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Diego, huge thanks for your work on this. I agree with Blueboar that this is excellent. As for whether or not to try to make it a separate guideline, I think that we should also consider whether there are ways to provide the same information in a shorter form, and be able to keep it here.
- Yeah... I would put it this way: being notable is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic (just as being verifiable is a precondition for inclusion of content within an article)... but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic (just as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of content within an article). Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's important to give this new approach careful consideration, and WP:There is no deadline. Therefore, I'm going to temporarily stop the RfC that I started, while we examine this new idea. I think that there has, so far, been enough difference of opinion to conclude that Draft 3 has no consensus in its present form. My hope is that a draft growing out of Draft 4 will be resubmitted to the community in a resumed RfC. On the spectrum of editor opinion, from "inclusionist" to "deletionist", I think it's very important to find a draft that is in the middle of the spectrum (which means that neither pole will be entirely satisfied, but also neither pole will be entirely dissatisfied), so I hope that editors from both ends of the spectrum will help discuss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not opposed to a separate page for this, and linking to this. But again, in relation to notability, we need to say, in some language and in more depth than just the phrase in the header: "a standalone page is not a requirement for a notability topic", and to add from others "A standalone page may be the best option for a topic with sufficient but minimum notable coverage instead of merging". A paragraph here , linking to this possible new page, is fine. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about: Notability is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic, but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic. Some notable topics may be better presented within the context of an article on a broader topic (see <new guideline>) Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not yet sold on a separate guideline. I'd like to work on the shorter approach I mentioned above. My apologies that I've been (and will continue to be, for another day or two) a little short on wiki-time, but I'll work on fleshing out what I mean as soon as I can get to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about: Notability is a precondition for having a stand alone article on a topic, but it does not guarantee a stand alone article on a topic. Some notable topics may be better presented within the context of an article on a broader topic (see <new guideline>) Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not opposed to a separate page for this, and linking to this. But again, in relation to notability, we need to say, in some language and in more depth than just the phrase in the header: "a standalone page is not a requirement for a notability topic", and to add from others "A standalone page may be the best option for a topic with sufficient but minimum notable coverage instead of merging". A paragraph here , linking to this possible new page, is fine. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- The first sentence is confusing. Perhaps you mean something like, "Even if a topic satisfies the sourcing standards for notability, editors may choose not to create a standalone article on Wikipedia after considering matters of style and how the available information is best presented."
- If a topic is notable, it qualifies for a separate, standalone article.
Notability = Sourcing × WP:NOT requirements × Editor's best judgment
- Notability is not just the first term in the equation. This section is about defining that third term, the one that takes a "qualifies based on sourcing" presumably notable topic and turns it into a topic that is not notable, i.e., does not actually "qualify for a separate, standalone article", because it's stylistically/contextually/whatever better for that material to be merged elsewhere.
- Wording that translates to "A topic that [qualifies for a separate, standalone article] does not qualify for a separate, standalone article" is never going to work for me.
- On the bigger question, while I honor the attempt to reduce ambiguity, the fact is that the third term in the equation is editorial judgment. It is not possible to reduce that to a checklist or to fully define it. The third term is, and has always been, a "subjective" item. We don't have to all like it, and a few of us will really hate it, but that's how the community actually makes these decisions, and we have to respect that fact, that very real existence of the importance of subjectiveness, on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm thinking is that we ought to find a way to acknowledge that "editorial judgment" is necessarily involved, but at the same time, make it explicitly clear that simply invoking the phrase is not a sufficient argument for deletion or merging. I'm working on ways to explain how, per Draft 4's bulleted points, there has to be justification in terms of how the decision helps readers understand the material. Sometimes, a standalone page helps one understand. Sometimes, the context of a section within a larger page helps one understand. (The other thing I'm thinking about is condensing the two sub-sections of Draft 4 into a single section. That way, we won't have dueling "content forks", one devoted to the "deletionist" approach, and the other devoted to the "inclusionist" one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- That approach sounds lovely. :-) If you can manage that feat, you'll have my respect. Diego (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- The one thing to keep in mind is that there will always be people on extremes - those that insist a notable topic must have a standalone article, and those that will think that anything that just barely shows notability should be deleted - and we're not going to change their behavior with this descriptive process of what we do. My goal in this overall is to simply give those majority of editors that fall in the middle a nice pointer to go "Hey, there's a better option to handling this topic..." something we presently cannot do with any guideline (MERGE only partially addresses this). So it is important that "editorial judgement" is a consensus-based decision and that often one enters IAR territory on these discussions. We would hope everyone involved in the consensus discussion is trying to think how best to present the topic to the reader, whether that's in context of other topics or standalone. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're right that in the end, it's always a consensual decision. That's why I think it's important to show a list of points that can tip the scales one way or the other; not as hard rules to follow, but as suggestions for ideas to have in mind during discussion. Diego (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: actually, that new wording you propose wouldn't work, as it differs from mine in an important way. My point was to express that sometimes editors will want a new article, sometimes they won't. I'm sure my text could benefit from some grammar checking (specially for prepositions) as English is not my mother language and it shows; but that first sentence should still be neutral with respect to the existence of a standalone article. Diego (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm thinking is that we ought to find a way to acknowledge that "editorial judgment" is necessarily involved, but at the same time, make it explicitly clear that simply invoking the phrase is not a sufficient argument for deletion or merging. I'm working on ways to explain how, per Draft 4's bulleted points, there has to be justification in terms of how the decision helps readers understand the material. Sometimes, a standalone page helps one understand. Sometimes, the context of a section within a larger page helps one understand. (The other thing I'm thinking about is condensing the two sub-sections of Draft 4 into a single section. That way, we won't have dueling "content forks", one devoted to the "deletionist" approach, and the other devoted to the "inclusionist" one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
What is "multiple" sources?
What is meant by "multiple" sources? My understanding of multiple is "more than one", which is confirmed by the Wiktionary definition. "Multiple sources" then could mean two, assuming the sources are strong enough, since two is more than one. I am being told in this AfD we need "many" sources, more than two (the exact number unstated, just a lot, or something). I am being told that "multiple sources" means "many sources" (many is defined by Wiktionary as "An indefinite large number").
Question: Do we need "more than one source" (multiple) or "an indefinite large number of sources" (many)? --Green Cardamom (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- You need enough to show significant coverage to demonstrate notability. There is no set number purposely because sometimes this can be done by one well-compiled reliable source, sometimes it requires a lot more. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It takes some judgement. A single really good, well respected book-length biography may be enough to establish notability, while a hundred copies of the name printed in various websites, with no in depth biographical information would not be. From my understanding, it isn't the number of sources, per se, it is the amount of information about a subject which determines if it is notable. --Jayron32 02:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hundreds of websites making brief mentions about a subject, even without going into much depth may well clear the notability hurdle depending on the circumstances. But I think the broader message in the above two replies is right on. The stature of the sources, and the depth the coverage they provide will determine how many sources you need. Better sources, more depth, less needed. I generally consider 3 independent reliable sources a good starting point. Monty845 04:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It depends. I can probably find my name a hundred different times on the internet in random contexts. It doesn't prove shit. If the mentions don't contain any significant information to expand an article with, what do we put in the article? Remember, notability is primarily about deciding how to decide to create an article, and the primary issue is content: if there's not enough content in the entire world to use as sources to build an article, then we can't make an article. Regardless of how many times a name can be found. --Jayron32 04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think one source would be enough - a "A single really good, well respected book-length biography" with no mention elsewhere simply isn't enough. And if it is reviewed, etc that's more than one. For me, 'multiple' is like 'a few' in that it is more than 2. And the fewer the sources, the more in depth they need to be. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- We're only looking for the presumption of notability. A single source will not make for a quality article, but if that is the most authorative source on a topic that's respected by peers in that topic, and it's clear there's more sources that could be pulled from to improve, that source will satisfy the presumption of notability. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think one source would be enough - a "A single really good, well respected book-length biography" with no mention elsewhere simply isn't enough. And if it is reviewed, etc that's more than one. For me, 'multiple' is like 'a few' in that it is more than 2. And the fewer the sources, the more in depth they need to be. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It depends. I can probably find my name a hundred different times on the internet in random contexts. It doesn't prove shit. If the mentions don't contain any significant information to expand an article with, what do we put in the article? Remember, notability is primarily about deciding how to decide to create an article, and the primary issue is content: if there's not enough content in the entire world to use as sources to build an article, then we can't make an article. Regardless of how many times a name can be found. --Jayron32 04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hundreds of websites making brief mentions about a subject, even without going into much depth may well clear the notability hurdle depending on the circumstances. But I think the broader message in the above two replies is right on. The stature of the sources, and the depth the coverage they provide will determine how many sources you need. Better sources, more depth, less needed. I generally consider 3 independent reliable sources a good starting point. Monty845 04:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It takes some judgement. A single really good, well respected book-length biography may be enough to establish notability, while a hundred copies of the name printed in various websites, with no in depth biographical information would not be. From my understanding, it isn't the number of sources, per se, it is the amount of information about a subject which determines if it is notable. --Jayron32 02:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The underlying issue here is whether two sources are sufficient to keep an article. OP has opined AfD is very simple: two sources, and bases his/her statement by interpreting "multiple" in Multiple sources are generally expected (WP:GNG) as implying that the existence of two sources is sufficient to keep an article. (The discussion is here.) --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- And the simple answer is, "It depends on the quality and coverage of those sources." --MASEM (t) 16:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in knowing the consensus to this as well. Stuff like this is especially tough when it comes to book sources, as many times all you might get are trade reviews or brief blurbs about authors. They will be posted in reliable sources, but are so brief that you can argue that a review by Publishers Weekly that's mostly a plot summary isn't really in-depth. However it is by a reliable source. I've always been under the presumption that multiple always means at least about 4 with 3 being the absolute minimum. Most of the articles that only have 1-2 sources that come up for AfD are deleted and the ones that are kept are always kept with the stipulation that someone will be supplying more sources. Many of these come back up for deletion within about 5 years of the initial AfD and are usually deleted for a lack of sources. I personally think that we need more than 2 sources for an article and that even if we have an incredibly reliable source for an article, that doesn't automatically show notability. How can it really be that notable if only one person has written a book/film/article/source about it? I know it's not that cut and dry, but that's sort of what it boils down to. On top of that, what really constitutes the idea of "quality" and "coverage"? It's kind of subjective at times because a book by a notable researcher might be seen as enough but then what makes that any different from a nice article written by Michiko Kakutani in the NYT? If two reasonably in-depth sources are really all that are needed, then there's at least about a couple of thousand articles that need to be recreated and at least a few dozen articles that are up for AfD that need to be ended as "keep" right now. I'm more worried about the longer reaching implications about this, as the argument that two sources aren't enough unless they fit this one specific idea of quality and coverage sort of sells short a lot of news articles and other sources that are by notable persons in reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's probably extremely rare - but its not out of the realm of possiblity - that two sources would be considered sufficient. The other thing to remember that this is just a test to assume a topic should have a stand-alone article - we're not looking for all the sources possible on a topic or a complete article, but enough to say "this looks like a topic that can be covered in an encyclopedic manner." If there's only a few sources given for an article but they are good, have additional references, and they are clearly only covering the tip of the iceberg for a topic, we'd likely presume notability. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Notability is a guideline not a hard policy and so is a rough guide, not an exact rule. What happens in a particular case depends upon the facts of the matter and who turns up to the discussion. In cases where the person's status is sufficient for inclusion — such as an Olympic athlete — then only one source would be required to establish that status. Warden (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Notability presumed from an SNG only needs one source to show that it meets the criteria that it states it passes (eg an Olympic winner). If you don't meet any SNG, you need to show that across some number of articles/media that the topic appears notable. That's achieved by showing that there is significant coverage, which could be done by one really well-done book or in-depth article, or may take 10 or more to show it. This is why we specific don't say a number to prevent gaming of this ("Oh look, I have two, its immediately notable!") --MASEM (t) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo Jayron: The point behind sources is to put material in the article. If you have a hundred sources that say "Zahpod is just zis guy, you know?", then you can't write much of an article, can you? But if you have a hundred sources that each provide a different fact about your subject, then a hundred brief sources could demonstrate notability.
- It's not fundamentally about the number of sources. It's about how much information you get from the sources, when you add together all the independent sources about the subject. (NB: that means that you can't count the subject's own website, his employer's website, etc.) The reason that we take this approach is explained at WP:WHYN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- People are making a very important point here... WP:Notability and the related SNGs are not firm and fast "rules" that equate perfectly to "Wikipedia should have an article on the topic". They are more of an indication that "Wikipedia should probably have an article on the topic"... Passing WP:NOTE, or one of the various SNGs does not guarantee an article. We need to remember that a topic may well be notable, and still not be worth having an article (if thousands of people have noted that "Zaphod" exists, there is a good argument for saying he is notable... but if the only thing that those thousands say about him is: "Zaphod is just zis guy, you know?" he is probably not worth an article, despite that notability). While Notability is an important factor in Keep/Delete discussions, it isn't the sole determinant.
- Similarly, there are a few topics that are worth having an article on, despite the fact that they don't really pass WP:NOTE or any SNG. Our article on Masonic conspiracy theories comes to mind... the only sources that even mention these theories are written by proponents (reliable sources ignore the proponents... considering the theories so nutty that they don't even bother to discuss them). However, there are a lot of proponents, and they are prolific writers. Enough unreliable sources accuse the Freemasons of some sort of conspiracy that the topic has entered the public consciousness ... the topic is considered worth an article, despite the technicality of not passing WP:NOTE or any SNG. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of editors (presumably old-timers) are arguing incorrectly that WP:GNG requires sources sufficient to write an article. This notion was removed from WP:N in late 2006. Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- True... which is why I distinguish "passing WP:NOTE" from "being worth an article". While most of the time, if a topic passes WP:NOTE it will be worth an article... there are rare exceptions. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Content enough to write an article" is not required at WP:GNG, but it's still listed at WP:WHYN and is good advice. Notability should ideally be separate from importance of the topic; thus the amount of sources required doesn't depend directly on how many of them we have, but whether 1)they're reliable enough to trust what they say (thus the 'multiple' and 'independent' requirements) and 2)there's enough content to write an article in accordance with WP:NPOV. Assessing notability by volume instead of quality is a popular choice, but it's not always required and has never been encoded in the guideline (for good reasons). Diego (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone be notable for the fact that they were interviewed by a major media outlet... regardless of what they were interviewed about
{hat|Guys... we have a noticeboard for this kind of discussion. Please take this there. This page is for discussion of the verbiage of the policy page. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC) }}
- Actually, noticeboards are distinctly lousy places for discussing a concept "in the abstract", as this discussion does. Conceptual discussions about what this guideline is supposed to communicate really do belong here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This came up as a side issue in a discussion at WT:Fringe... but I think it is worth discussing in the abstract. If someone is interviewed (substantially) by a major media outlet... does the fact that he/she was considered worth interviewing indicate or confer some degree of notability on the person? I am not talking about a brief quote, or a passing reference... but a situation where someone is the primary focus of an extensive media interview.
For example... suppose a nationally televised TV program like "60 Minutes" contains an extensive interview segment with someone. It does not really matter what he was interviewed about... Thousands of people watched the program. All these people are now aware of the interviewee. I could see an argument for saying he/she should be considered at least marginally notable purely for being the subject of an extensive interview on 60 Minutes. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just being the interviewed person in an interview does not impart notability. On the other hand, if they were interviewed about themselves, that is a weak secondary (though likely more primary) about the person - it may help support notability but certainly not imply notability on its own. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)In the hypothetical you crafted, It would be important to know what the subject of the interview was. If the interview was about the person being interviewed, and was a full segment, then one 60 Minutes interview would be extremely strong evidence of notability. If the actual subject of the piece is something else, and the interviewee is merely providing information about that subject, then their selection for 60 minutes still supports a claim of notability, but I think is unlikely to establish notability standing alone. Monty845 17:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, there would be a difference if 60 minutes interviewed a John Smith in a segment about the person and if they interviewed a neighbour of Smith's for insight of what he is like. In the first case Smith is most likely notable but in the second case the neighbour is likely not notable.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- NO If a person is interviewed because there is some specific interest in that person, the nature of that interest could be expected to be documented, and that would potentially serve as proof of notability. If the person is being interviewed in the context of some event or situation, it would be the notability of that latter that would govern, and if the interview is important enough in context to merit mention, his notability would generally fall under WP:ONEEVENT, and his article would be redirected there. Nor does the subject inherit notability from the interviewer: if Mike Wallace interviews a man on the street, there is indeed a sense in which this subject is picked specifically to be non-notable. It might be possible that the interview itself becomes the notable event, but likely that would become the article subject and not the interviewee, although this might change if the interview took the form of an extended biography. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was definitely not talking about a "man on the street" interview... but a situation where the interviewee is himself/herself the topic of an extensive interview. For example: lets say Rolling Stone magazine runs an article entitle "Joe Blow - Roadie to the Stars"... an interview with a guy who has spent a lifetime as a roadie for various rock bands and music artists - driving tucks full of equipment from gig to gig, setting up the sound equipment and instruments, etc.... The point of the interview is to get his unique perspective on the music industry and the artists he as worked for. Before the interview, I doubt we would call this guy notable; he was just one of many, working in the background without any notice. But after the interview... I think things have changed. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the tendency at AFD would be to treat that roadie as non-notable, if all we had to go by was that interview. Participants would likely be unsatisfied with just that one interview, and would factor in the subject's actual accomplishments. The interview might be characterized as "really" about the music history and the industry the roadie participated in. And if no other source has written about this roadie, I think that might be the best characterization of such a hypothetical article. The roadie is only incidentally the article's subject, interviewed for his knowledge and experiences with notable bands in a notable industry rather than to find out about him in and of himself. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was definitely not talking about a "man on the street" interview... but a situation where the interviewee is himself/herself the topic of an extensive interview. For example: lets say Rolling Stone magazine runs an article entitle "Joe Blow - Roadie to the Stars"... an interview with a guy who has spent a lifetime as a roadie for various rock bands and music artists - driving tucks full of equipment from gig to gig, setting up the sound equipment and instruments, etc.... The point of the interview is to get his unique perspective on the music industry and the artists he as worked for. Before the interview, I doubt we would call this guy notable; he was just one of many, working in the background without any notice. But after the interview... I think things have changed. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's assume that the interview isn't the only source in the world. Let's assume instead that there are newspaper or magazine articles that provide some brief coverage while mostly talking about the band in general, e.g., "Joe Blow is in town for the Big Concert this weekend. Blow has worked for rock bands ever since he graduated from Local High School class of '76" or "A minor disaster at last weekend's concert was avoided when Joe Blow, longtime band roadie, pulled the batteries out of his own camera to power the singer's walkabout mic".
- Assume that the other sources are just enough to create a borderline case. Would the big interview push it over the top, or would it have no effect at all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring what might be BLP1E problems with the example , I would say that no, the interview + all other sources doesn't make the person notable. Inclusion by name in a broader topic, certainly. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, not certainly; often journalistic sources include names...of their sources. Or names and a slice of life of everyday people just to add some color. So just because a quote or action is attributed to a named person in a newspaper or magazine article does not mean that they are the subject of the article, or even integral to the subject of the article, and even if multiple articles identify the same person it may just mean they all just found the same source connected with the actual subject of the articles. All of which would mean that this hypothetical person probably should not be mentioned in any article, unless it's as part of a citation to identify who a source attributed something to. Notice all the qualifying language I've used: it's really going to come down to reading the sources, understanding the subject, and applying sound editorial judgment rather than trying to slam down pre-ordained absolute rules. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring what might be BLP1E problems with the example , I would say that no, the interview + all other sources doesn't make the person notable. Inclusion by name in a broader topic, certainly. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'll read the guideline again, especially the sentence that says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis added). Whether he is "the subject of the article, or even integral to the subject of the article" is irrelevant.
- The question here is whether it makes any difference at all. You have a borderline case for notability. Good editors are evenly divided. The major interview is broadcast. Do you expect that new source to change people's minds, or not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Interviewing someone as an example of a class (e.g. our putative roadie) doesn't make them notable; that is simply a shorter street, as it were, for them to be the man in. For them to be notable, they would need to be chosen to be interviewed for being specifically themselves, not for being someone like themselves. That would even include cases where the class of people from which they were selected included only them (e.g. interviewing the Crown Prince of Ruritania's valet). Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the BBC calls someone a "legend" does that make him or her notable? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not by itself, but it does hint that if you can't find any other sources about this person, then you've probably not looked hard enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- To put it another way someone does not meet notability standards simply because the BBC calls them a legend, however, someone who the BBC decides to call a legend would most likely be someone who was notable before hand and we should be able to find additional reliable sources about the person. In short, if we don't have an article about someone the BBC calls a legend it would be a good idea to look for sources for the person since there is a good chance that we are dealing with a notable person who slipped though the cracks. There are no guarantees though.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not by itself, but it does hint that if you can't find any other sources about this person, then you've probably not looked hard enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Temporary
I know that this has been brought up roughly twenty times, but much to my surprise, not once has anyone addressed the real problem behind "Notability is not temporary".
The fact of the matter is that sources do degrade over time. Web pages disappear all the time, books and newspapers are lost over the years.
Consider, for a second, Blood on the Dance Floor. Consider now that every single source there is a webpage. They are guaranteed to fade. They are notable per WP:MUSIC #2, but one day, records of their chart progress will be lost. They will no longer be notable, with no evidence that they ever charted.
Maybe the problem here is with notability guidelines, but as it currently stands, notability, as defined by Wikipedia policy, is temporary. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is why when we cite we give as many details - even if the work is lost forever due to something, we have record it existed at one point. For web pages, there are systems like WebCite that archive web pages for content. Basically, this is not an issue. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Our other approach is simply to say that our original decision in favor of the subject's notability was wrong, because based on currently available sources, it's clearly not.
- Nobody pretends this is a perfect system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly... While the notability of a topic may not be temporary... the Wikipedia determination that the topic is or is not notable enough for an article can be. We can point to numerous examples of topics that were deemed notable in one AfD discussion, and then re-examined in a subsequent AfD discussion and deemed non-notable after all. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)