Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) |
Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) Breaking the dealock |
||
Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
::::::: Yes, that specific list arrived at no consensus, and I do not that one of the comments that the admin hilight was a merge which I still support ''for that list''. But there are plenty of "keep" AFD results from lists in the past (from the deletion sorting) where I base my interpretation of current consensus at and demonstrate that lists are kept where the topic "List of X" is far from notable. There are also probably 3-4 times that number of lists that are deleted, but ''not'' for the reason that "List of X" is notable but that the list is indiscriminate. The four types of lists I've described above are my general interpretation to match what's seen in the list deletions That's our consensus, and we need to reflect that where ever these are going to be written. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
::::::: Yes, that specific list arrived at no consensus, and I do not that one of the comments that the admin hilight was a merge which I still support ''for that list''. But there are plenty of "keep" AFD results from lists in the past (from the deletion sorting) where I base my interpretation of current consensus at and demonstrate that lists are kept where the topic "List of X" is far from notable. There are also probably 3-4 times that number of lists that are deleted, but ''not'' for the reason that "List of X" is notable but that the list is indiscriminate. The four types of lists I've described above are my general interpretation to match what's seen in the list deletions That's our consensus, and we need to reflect that where ever these are going to be written. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::That is the problem: it is your general interpretation of the AFD results. Its an interesting interpetation, and is relevant to this discussion. However, it is not supported by any policy or guideline at this time. If you want to change the notability guideline to exempt lists from [[WP:N]] so that your interpretion becomes the recognised consensus, put forward a formal proposal to this effect.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::That is the problem: it is your general interpretation of the AFD results. Its an interesting interpetation, and is relevant to this discussion. However, it is not supported by any policy or guideline at this time. If you want to change the notability guideline to exempt lists from [[WP:N]] so that your interpretion becomes the recognised consensus, put forward a formal proposal to this effect.--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
===Breaking the dealock=== |
|||
The problem as I see it is that for years we used have Pixelface telling us that notability guideline did not apply to certain topics, such as plot only article topics, but he was never able to impose his views on the community, despite best effors. Despite all the endless dsicussions we had with him, he never put forward a formal proposal that would result in such an exemption. With regard to lists, I see the same pattern emerging. If there is any editor here who believes that list topics should be exempt from [[WP:N]], then they should put forward a proposal now, rather than ''infer'' that they exempt by other means. Blueboar has asked for clarity, and now is the time to make such a proposal explicit and open to disucssion. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:37, 19 August 2010
How many returns in a popular search engine like Google does it take?
An article I wrote about someone was dismissed as not being of a notable figure. The subject's name is Perry Noble. Put his name in qoutes on Google's web search and you get close to 87,000 returns. I am not saying that in and of itself confers notability, but it has to count for something. Daredevil1234 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:GOOGLETEST. A strict number of hits on google does not confer notability, because we're looking at the quality, not quantity of sources. That said, if you search instead with Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books and get a good number of hits, there's a good chance you can use sources given there to justify notability. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is sort of connected to the point I raise below: google hits represent only the potential for a good article. Whether an article is good in the sense of satisfying guidelines, and policy, etc. is the task of the editor and it starts with references to sources which demonstrate significant coverage independent of the subject. patsw (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic...
An article about a company was created by an anonymous editor back in 2006. It was and is unreferenced. Someone nominated it recently for an AfD. The article has been around for four years without an attempt to provide references based upon reliable third party sources. I wrote in the Afd There's no sign that this article is going to be improved to meet WP:COMPANY.
No one is asserting the article is meeting WP:COMPANY now on the basis of reliable third party sources, rather the claim is to leave the article alone, in the expectation that eventually someone will add references based upon reliable third party sources. If that rationale were universally accepted, how could an article ever get deleted? patsw (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is probably getting in the iffy area that has been used for settlements - but really doesn't exist outside of that area. Because companies come and go, crystal-balling the expectation of sources really isn't a good article for notability, and the article should be deleted unless secondary sources can be found. I can understand that settlements are a bit more permanent and thus part of the rationale why we can expect sources in the future. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I think there's a little experiment going on: Keep voters are asserting the mere possibility of adding sources of independent coverage ought to be enough for the article to survive AfD, rather than actually adding the sources of independent coverage to the article while the AfD process is open. patsw (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- ORG requires that sources exist; it does not require that any be cited. An article may be 100% {{unref}}'d and still comply with ORG. However, if nobody actually believes that the source exist right now (not maybe-someday-in-my-crystal-ball), then the article should be deleted. (How do you know that it's not a hoax if there are no independent sources?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think this, combined with J04n's argument, combined with the fact we CSD articles on organizations and individuals with no evidence of importance to avoid vanity articles, basically means the exercise of "this will have sources in the future, just wait" is fruitless for any of the types of articles covered under CSD A7. That's a good way to separate out this problem compared to the settlements issue or other similar topics. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the course of an AfD, sources must be forthcoming. When they are, the article should be updated to reflect them. {{unref}} is always a transitional state. An article that has been through an AfD should never need that template, so I'm not sure that I'd say that the template's presence is compatible with out notability guidelines. RJC TalkContribs 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why can't you provide a link to the actual article? Why are we discussing this in the abstract if you have a specific case in mind? john k (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Think about each of these cases of a AfD that started for an article which fails to meet WP:N and in particular fails to meet WP:GNG, and is unreferenced, or at least unreferenced from reliable third party sources:
- Deleters state they can't find sources, and keepers state they can, therefore wait for someone to eventually add them. Invoking the nuance that content does not need to be verified in the article itself, only verifiable.
- Deleters state they can't find sources, and furthermore it is unlikely they will ever appear, keepers state they believe it likely that sources will appear, therefore wait for sources to appear and for someone to eventually add them -- invoking WP:DEADLINE
- Deleters state the above, keepers even concede the low probability of sources eventually appearing, so ultimately keepers quote WP:WIP(essay) as displacing WP:V (see also meta:Inclusionism and other essays) with respect to third-party sources covering the subject. My guess is they are appealing to a future consensus around WP:NOT which minimizes the role of WP:N. patsw (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the first case, as long as within the course of the AFD that someone has linked or spelled out references and others agree they work and should be added - but no one actually goes about adding them - that's ok, though it takes but a moment to even add poorly formatted citations to the main article if they are present in the AFD. So that's not an issue. But within actually pointing to sources, the keep argument should be invalid.
- Under the presumption that there are no useful sources in the article on a company, arguing DEADLINE or WIP displaces V is not appropriate as V is policy (this is moreso than just being an WP:N issue); being at AFD for lack of sources means that someone has challenged the factual nature of the information on the page putting the onus of retention on the people that want to keep that information, and not being able to produce a valid source or a pointer to that source (verifyability) is grounds for removal, in this case of the entire article. This is in contrast to an article that is verified but yet shows non-notability. One can argue in this case for DEADLINE/WIP for some areas to allow notability to come long in time but this is a very limited exception. But it is a different issue than the 3 cases presented above, I believe. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- As s sidebar comment, articles on certain types of subjects, such as companies have a higher risk / incidence of existing for self-serving or commercial purposes than other subjects. I think that it is common and right to give such a bit of extra scrutiny. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- And keep in mind too, that WP:GNG and other guidelines are now in many cases treated as defacto WP:ESSAYS. Their instruction can be ignored when enough editors create a consensus in various discussions, even when that consensus might act contrary to instruction of any specific guideline. For instance, and though AFD is supposedly not be a "vote", creating a new consensus is done by overwhelming numbers of editors offering opinions and conclusions... even when that consensus runs contrary to existing guideline. It is through the numbers (votes) that new consensus is created and existing guideline ignored. So if enough editors offer a keep or delete, even when it might run contrary to existing guideline, a closer may recognize and act upon that new consesnsus, and thus himself ignore existing guideline, as they are simply guides, after all... and not ironclad rules... and closers may often acknowledge that interpretation and implementation of guideline is changing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is an oversimplification of the consensus. I think the following hold true:
- WP:V's requirement that articles be sourced to third-party sources (particularly for vanity articles) is still a strongly viewed policy. If there are no sources, period, we will pretty quickly delete anything questionable.
- The general concept of WP:N (not the GNG) is guideline quality - that is, a stand along article on a topic should demonstrate the topic is notable; there's some leeway here, but not a lot.
- Where there is the wide variance that comes from consensus that is alluded to above is where understanding that the demonstration of notability incorporates more than the GNG and other sub-notability guidelines, thus allowing topics to be included per WP:N that don't necessary meet the GNG or other SNGs but that still are meeting the core content policies (V, NOR, NPOV)
- Or another way to view it; we have an unstated inclusion guideline, of which WP:N (supported by the GNG or SNGs) is one part of; consensus lets us fill in the rest, but no one has been able to qualify that remaining space between inclusion and notability in words well enough, or possibly this is just impossible to qualify and thus why we let consensus decide when the issues around.
- But I will say this: saying WP:N is virtually treated as an essay is inappropriate; it is one of the guidelines that address WP's discriminate goals. It's understanding that parts of it - or lack of parts of it - are what is subject to much wide variance. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I will agree that my comment it is an oversimplification. But I have recently seen just such things happening, and it is rather chilling. When WP:N and WP:GNG become subject to personal interpretation, and through consesnsus lose their ability to act as guidelines toward what is worthy of note, consensus is changed and they become essay per definition. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's still not true. WP:N and WP:GNG can only be assessed at the level of consensus (a single person cannot delete an article outside of CSD issues), and requires consensus for that to happen; it only happens that one person can start the consensus-generating process for N/GNG based on their opinion. But that opinion can easily be against consensus and the article kept. AFD is needed for personal opinions overriding a consensus-based guideline. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... so such discussions could be "kept" if a closer determines that guideline was not respected, or "deleted" if the closer grants that consensus in a particular case is to ignore guideline? In either scenario the result could be a close taken to deletion review, and the close questioned, no matter the good faith of the closer in either direction. Yikes. Talk about a Gordian Knot. Admins have far more headaches than thought. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, yes. Though the few case of AFD where I see that happen, the most likely outcome is "no consensus" and letting the article stay around for improvement. Though again, people should note that deletion review is not AFD#2. It should be a problem with the process, not the notability issues. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is an oversimplification of the consensus. I think the following hold true:
- And keep in mind too, that WP:GNG and other guidelines are now in many cases treated as defacto WP:ESSAYS. Their instruction can be ignored when enough editors create a consensus in various discussions, even when that consensus might act contrary to instruction of any specific guideline. For instance, and though AFD is supposedly not be a "vote", creating a new consensus is done by overwhelming numbers of editors offering opinions and conclusions... even when that consensus runs contrary to existing guideline. It is through the numbers (votes) that new consensus is created and existing guideline ignored. So if enough editors offer a keep or delete, even when it might run contrary to existing guideline, a closer may recognize and act upon that new consesnsus, and thus himself ignore existing guideline, as they are simply guides, after all... and not ironclad rules... and closers may often acknowledge that interpretation and implementation of guideline is changing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- As s sidebar comment, articles on certain types of subjects, such as companies have a higher risk / incidence of existing for self-serving or commercial purposes than other subjects. I think that it is common and right to give such a bit of extra scrutiny. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Help with Article for Deletion
There is currently a debate going on for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road to... (Family Guy) about whether there has been enough significant coverage of the "Road to" series to warrant an article. The discussion is becoming more and more uncivil, so I would appreciate any opinions on the matter. Thanks. Ωphois 04:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Question
Has there ever been a discussion on whether all or part of this should be a policy? If so, could someone provide a link to that discussion? Thanks in advance, --WFC-- 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and they have resulted in very little consensus to do so. See Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Lists and Notability
I think we need clarification of notability when it comes to list articles, especially those with a title that implies combine attributes for inclusion. Does the underlying topic of the list need to be notable, or is it enough that the items listed be notable (or is it some combination of both)?
To give an example of what I am talking about... suppose I were to create List of buildings with shingle roofs. My question is this... do the buildings listed need to be notable because they have shingle roofs, or is it enough that the building be a) notable (for whatever reason) and b) have a shingle roof? Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a very difficult question and I think that notability is the wrong feature to focus on for lists. There are likely some lists that are notable as a list themselves, there are likely many lists that are a collection of (only) notable elements for that list, but there are plenty of other lists, routinely kept, where there is no significant notability of the combined list topic or of its elements. To me, the way I've seen lists kept and deleted is all centered around two factors (though everything is case-by-case here):
- Is the list discriminate - but not too discriminate? This is shown by a meaningful, non-arbitrary definition of the list (ideally that definition being sourced itself) that provides a list membership size that is reasonable narrow but not too specific. "List of actors that have won Oscars" is meaningful, non-arbitrary, and is a finite list size. "List of actors named John" is arbitrary and leads to a list that can be infinitely long (and thus likely would be deleted). Note that often, a list that seems arbitrary is made discriminate by asserting a specific requirement in the definition or the article's talk page, such as notability; however, at the same time, a list of notable elements put together under an indiscriminate definition is not always going to be kept (such as "notable actors named John") Basically, if it is a good list definition, the list is likely kept regardless of notability of elements or the list itself.
- Is the list used to support a larger topic? If we had no WP:SIZE problems such as if we were a printed work, would a list that involves topic X be reasoned expected to be included in the article on topic X? If so, then it is likely going to be kept.
- So taking List of buildings with shingle roofs as an example, clearly without any further definition, it is way too broad (it is a common roofing technique) so the next step is to consider tightening the definition. Adding only notable buildings (or specific buildings with articles on WP) with shingled roofs? To me, that still screams indiscriminate (again, because of how common the roof style is). A possible case may be List of historic buildings with shingled roofs, noting that "historic" must be included on the appropriate country's historic registration list - presuming that shingled roofs for historical buildings is non-common but interesting grouping. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would have to disagee, because this is too roundabout and subjective way to describe lists, which are no different from other mainspace articles other than their format. Lists are subject to all existing policies and guidelines, and so their subject matter ("the topic") should be notable. If a list is not notable, then there is no rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- In answer to Blueboar, your example is putting the horse before the cart. If the list top "List of buildings with shingle roofs" has not been published in any form by a reliable, third party source, then it fails WP:BURDEN. This means that the list topic must have been published, either in whole or in part (i.e. just a working definition) to demonstrate that it has not Primary (original) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except there are plenty of examples of lists, sent through AFD, that are kept that aren't notable but are discriminate and are well-referenced. So clearly notability doesn't apply to lists based on consensus. And we've been through this before: Notability is already a subjective measure, which is why consensus overrides all over flat out rules. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, you know that is not true. Notability is about topic inclusion, and although it is subjective, editors judge a topic to be notable based on verifable evidence. By contrast WP:AFD is about article deletion, and is entirely subjective process, as it self-evident that you cannot find evidence of any sort to show that a topic is not notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, lists (when the article is just a list) are a good candidate for "what Wikipedia is not", especially for lists with dual criteria. But, setting that aside...... But for here, IMHO the subject (as defined by the list criteria) must meet notability requirements. So, for "List of Oscar Winners", such a compilation will have been covered by suitable sources. But there is probably no suitable coverage in sources of the TOPIC of 31 foot tall buildings with shingled roofs. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is about the ability of a topic to have its own stand alone article; once shown notable, we do not restrict what is covered by a topic except through other content policies and guidelines. Lists are not topics - they may be a stand alone topic but more often than not they aren't. Thus, we cannot always treat lists the same manner as regular notability. When you look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive, there are a lot of deletions, probably at least 80% are, so not any old list is immediately kept. But when you look at what's kept, and what's deleted, you find that notability of the list itself rarely enters into the question - it is whether the list is discriminate or not (which includes evidence or lack thereof of notable elements within the list), and whether other content policies apply to nullify the need for the list. So clearly its not flat out notability that applies here. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, you know that is not true. Notability is about topic inclusion, and although it is subjective, editors judge a topic to be notable based on verifable evidence. By contrast WP:AFD is about article deletion, and is entirely subjective process, as it self-evident that you cannot find evidence of any sort to show that a topic is not notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except there are plenty of examples of lists, sent through AFD, that are kept that aren't notable but are discriminate and are well-referenced. So clearly notability doesn't apply to lists based on consensus. And we've been through this before: Notability is already a subjective measure, which is why consensus overrides all over flat out rules. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose the issue I am concerned about is this: WP:NOTE tells us that we need to establish (through reliable sources) that the topic of an article is notable ... but in many list articles this is difficult. For one thing, it isn't always clear what the topic actually is. What exactly is the topic of List of buildings with shingle roofs? Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO the generic form of the example ("List of buildings with shingled roofs") is "Examples of <notable subject>", which I think is weak (i.e., should be merged to the article about the notable subject unless there are WP:SIZE issues). If instead the goal is "Navigation device for buildings" (in which case, you might expect a series: List of buildings with gravel roofs, list of buildings with tile roofs, etc), then I'd accept it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing's last comment just clarified the issue (if not the solution) for me... there are two different types of list articles... on one hand we have "List of <items that all fall within a notable subject>" and on the other we have "List of <items that are individually notable, that have a common denominator>" With the first, it is usually fairly easy to establish notability ... either in an article or in the lede of the list. It is not easy to establish the notability of the second type. My concern is mostly with the second type... to what extent must the common denominator be notable... and how do we establish this? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I think it's less that the common denominator needs to be notable moreso that it is supporting a larger topic (otherwise it is just a list for list's sake, which means a category may be better), and that the combination is not indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am having difficulty understanding why the common denominator does not need to be notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because often when all the individual elements are notable but not the list grouping itself, that list grouping is serving as a means of navigation or similar classification that is beyond the capability of a category. Take several "List of people from..." lists which are generally only those with bluelinks. The list "topic" would be "Notable people from X" which may exist in limited forms as a notable topic for major cities or locations, but rarely for any random location - that is, notability of the list definition is not required to keep the list. It is because, as you can see argued when these come up, that a section about people from X would be a list normally included on the article about X, but when the number of people from X become exceeding large, it is moved to this list page, maintaining support for the original article. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, aren't you sort of arguing that a list should not be held to article standards because it's really a navigation page rather than an article? If there are no rules at the list article level, how about a "List of Elected Officials Who Voted to Raise Taxes" article? :-) North8000 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, because we're still have to take into account several factors: Indiscriminate content ("List of people named John", even if they are all bluelinked fails) and issues like POV and NOT (which, seriously, the "List of Elected Officials Who Voted to Raise Taxes" would fail terribly). Lists don't have free clearance just because they are lists and not articles, but a different set of inclusion allowances instead come into play. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I picked a glaring example for clarity, but there seem to be list articles where the title wording itself seems to be implied OR or soapboxing or "to make a point" One is currently being discussed at wp:nor "List of Wars between democracies" These "two criteria" lists seem to be inherently OR at best. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that "list of wars between democracies" is based on a POV-loaded term (though as I've noted at WT:OR the term can be taken in two different ways, one specifically neutral, the other specifically favoring a point, so there's some OR/POV issues to resolve there first before we can accept it. This is a lot more complex example, that I think the POV-ness of the term has to be dealt with first before we can question whether the list is ok for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I picked a glaring example for clarity, but there seem to be list articles where the title wording itself seems to be implied OR or soapboxing or "to make a point" One is currently being discussed at wp:nor "List of Wars between democracies" These "two criteria" lists seem to be inherently OR at best. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, because we're still have to take into account several factors: Indiscriminate content ("List of people named John", even if they are all bluelinked fails) and issues like POV and NOT (which, seriously, the "List of Elected Officials Who Voted to Raise Taxes" would fail terribly). Lists don't have free clearance just because they are lists and not articles, but a different set of inclusion allowances instead come into play. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, aren't you sort of arguing that a list should not be held to article standards because it's really a navigation page rather than an article? If there are no rules at the list article level, how about a "List of Elected Officials Who Voted to Raise Taxes" article? :-) North8000 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because often when all the individual elements are notable but not the list grouping itself, that list grouping is serving as a means of navigation or similar classification that is beyond the capability of a category. Take several "List of people from..." lists which are generally only those with bluelinks. The list "topic" would be "Notable people from X" which may exist in limited forms as a notable topic for major cities or locations, but rarely for any random location - that is, notability of the list definition is not required to keep the list. It is because, as you can see argued when these come up, that a section about people from X would be a list normally included on the article about X, but when the number of people from X become exceeding large, it is moved to this list page, maintaining support for the original article. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am having difficulty understanding why the common denominator does not need to be notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I think it's less that the common denominator needs to be notable moreso that it is supporting a larger topic (otherwise it is just a list for list's sake, which means a category may be better), and that the combination is not indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing's last comment just clarified the issue (if not the solution) for me... there are two different types of list articles... on one hand we have "List of <items that all fall within a notable subject>" and on the other we have "List of <items that are individually notable, that have a common denominator>" With the first, it is usually fairly easy to establish notability ... either in an article or in the lede of the list. It is not easy to establish the notability of the second type. My concern is mostly with the second type... to what extent must the common denominator be notable... and how do we establish this? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me lay out a broad claim: any list for which there is (1) objective, verifiable criteria, (2) not a duplicate on some other Internet resource, (3) serious interest among editors (i.e. not contrived, not trivial, not silly), and (4) a reasonable expectation that it will be maintained, is a candidate for a good list. A more common questions is when does a list make sense, versus a new category. patsw (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree on #2. It depends on the encyclopedic nature of the data. There are plenty of offline sources that provide a list of US presidents, should we get rid of ours? All the other points make sense. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I read number 2 as a general ward against duplicating single site lists elsewhere on the internet. Meaning that if we have a list article it shouldn't be an element for element copy of some other list article on a random web-page (distinct from copyright issues). Protonk (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only objective, verifiable criteria for inclusion of lists is...(you guessed it)...notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I read number 2 as a general ward against duplicating single site lists elsewhere on the internet. Meaning that if we have a list article it shouldn't be an element for element copy of some other list article on a random web-page (distinct from copyright issues). Protonk (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
same issue, but now with a real life article
OK... to put a real article's face on this... the article that prompted my thoughts and question was List of Masonic buildings. We have already had an AfD on this list... resulting in a no consensus leaning towards keep determination. That indicates that the community thinks something about this list is considered notable... but we are having difficulty defining what that is. Essentially editors can not agree on what this list should be about. Should it be about "notable buildings that happen to be Masonic" ... or is it about "buildings that are notable because they are Masonic" (the second would be a much smaller list). The title could be understood either way. So we really have two potential topics for the same title. Notability is not the key issue here (as I said, it isn't a question of whether the topic is notable... it's more a question of what part of the topic is notable). I understood how notability works for normal articles... but not how it works for lists. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think there needs to be clarification on the name. A practical question: what does it take to make a building Masonic? Is it a certain certification, or can anyone just say "yea, my building's Masonic" --MASEM (t) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Has the list (or its defintion) been published elsewhere? If not then it fails WP:BURDEN. No wonder the editors can't agree on what it is abou, because there are no reliable, third part sources which they can follow. As far I can see, the list is comprised of primary (original) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, not true. If there is a sourced definition, and there's sources for each entry to meet that definition, but the complete list itself is not sourced, it is still a list that complies with all policies and guidelines, though there's still a question of how discriminate the list is. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, there is no sourced definition. Most of the buildings are on the NRHP... but they are not listed in the NRHP because they are "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, then, any random building can become "Masonic" simply because the Freemasons or similar decide to meet there? I do recognize based on the list that there are a subset of these buildings specifically built by Masons for the purposes of being a Masonic building, and that's a different kettle of fish regardless. But, say, the local Masons decide to use the town Library (not built by Masons, just a building) regularly for their meetings, is that library suddenly "Masonic"? If I am reading that as the case (I admit to likely being wrong), I'd equate that to sources being self-published and making the list of those buildings simply indiscriminate. Starting from this case, however, I would further argue that "Masonic buildings on the NRHP" would be a better qualified list (since that now requires a secondary source in terms of the NRHP to acknowledge that) or "Masonic buildings constructed by Masons" would be another qualified list. But again, that depends on if I'm reading the definition right. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...say, the local Masons decide to use the town Library (not built by Masons, just a building) regularly for their meetings, is that library suddenly "Masonic"? That seems to be the view of the more extreme editors at the page... I don't agree with that view, however. A more common situation would be where the local library is shut down, and the building is then purchased by the Masons for their meetings. The building is historic, so it gets listed on the NRHP... but because the Masons currently own it (and probably filed the application to list it with the NRHP, perhaps for tax assessment reasons) it gets listed as "Masonic Temple" ... even if the thing that made it historic in the first place has nothing to do with the Masons. A third situation is where a building was originally purpose built by the masons as a meeting hall, and then the Masons sold it... and now it is used for something else (a store... a hotel... condominiums... etc.) The building no longer has any "Masonic" connection ... but is listed as "Masonic Hall" in the NRHP. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so it's more correct to say that a "Masonic building" (ignoring the NRHP) is a building that is presently or was once owned by the Masons specifically for activities of the group. The Masons using a building that is *not* owned by them for one or so meetings does not "bless" the building as Masonic? --MASEM (t) 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...say, the local Masons decide to use the town Library (not built by Masons, just a building) regularly for their meetings, is that library suddenly "Masonic"? That seems to be the view of the more extreme editors at the page... I don't agree with that view, however. A more common situation would be where the local library is shut down, and the building is then purchased by the Masons for their meetings. The building is historic, so it gets listed on the NRHP... but because the Masons currently own it (and probably filed the application to list it with the NRHP, perhaps for tax assessment reasons) it gets listed as "Masonic Temple" ... even if the thing that made it historic in the first place has nothing to do with the Masons. A third situation is where a building was originally purpose built by the masons as a meeting hall, and then the Masons sold it... and now it is used for something else (a store... a hotel... condominiums... etc.) The building no longer has any "Masonic" connection ... but is listed as "Masonic Hall" in the NRHP. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, then, any random building can become "Masonic" simply because the Freemasons or similar decide to meet there? I do recognize based on the list that there are a subset of these buildings specifically built by Masons for the purposes of being a Masonic building, and that's a different kettle of fish regardless. But, say, the local Masons decide to use the town Library (not built by Masons, just a building) regularly for their meetings, is that library suddenly "Masonic"? If I am reading that as the case (I admit to likely being wrong), I'd equate that to sources being self-published and making the list of those buildings simply indiscriminate. Starting from this case, however, I would further argue that "Masonic buildings on the NRHP" would be a better qualified list (since that now requires a secondary source in terms of the NRHP to acknowledge that) or "Masonic buildings constructed by Masons" would be another qualified list. But again, that depends on if I'm reading the definition right. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sort of... It may help for me to explain terminology and history here .... When Freemasonry started, lodges met in private houses, or in the rented private dining rooms of Taverns. The room where they met was termed the "Temple" for the duration of the meeting. Freemasons continue to use the term with that connotation today... any room in which Masons meet is termed a "Temple" by the Freemasons (even if they only meet in that room once in the history of the lodge, it is the "Temple" for the duration of the meeting.)
- Now, to hold a lodge, you have to set the room up a specific way (with a table in the center of the room, and chairs for the officers in specific places). It was time consuming to have to rearrange the furniture every time your lodge held a meeting... so, around the time of the American Revolution, lodges began to rent or purchase rooms where they could leave the room set up permanently. These too became known as the "Temple". From there is was an easy step for lodges to purchase or build their own entire building... so they could include a dining room, kitchen, office and other facilities. In larger towns several lodges might join together and share premises. In rural areas the the buildings were limited to the town lodge. Over the years, a lodge might move to a new location, or it might want larger or smaller premises as needed. It might build a new building... it might purchase an existing buildings (not necessarily one originally built to house the Masons)... sometimes a lodge that was looking to relocate would purchase a historic building ... to prevent it from being torn down by developers. All of these buildings become known as a "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall". However, when they moved, the old building often was still referred to as the "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall" by the community. So now a building might be called "Masonic Temple" even if the masons no longer meet there.
- Unfortunately, the Wikipedia list article in question is entitled, List of Masonic buildings... and not List of buildings named "Masonic Temple"... and "Masonic building" is not defined. That can include more than just meeting places. It could include other buildings associated with Freemasonry in any way. For example... the various orphanages, old-folks homes, Schools etc that were built by the Freemasons as part of their charitable work can be considered "Masonic buildings". The problem is that the term "Masonic building" is an invention of Wikipedia, not something that comes out of Freemasonry. There is no definition of what a "Masonic building" is... except the common sense definition of "a building associated with Freemasonry in some way". The question is... does such a broad and ill defined definition result in a notable topic for a list... or does it need to be narrowed? How can we say that a "Masonic building" is notable, when we are not even sure what a "masonic building" is? Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so if I understand correctly: even if the Masons met once in a building and never again, it could be titled a Masonic building (per our WP definition)?
- Working from that, it clearly should be obvious that not every "Masonic building" is notable - or more than the term "Masonic building" does not infer notability on the building because it is literally an arbitrary term. Thus, a straight up list of any Masonic building is indiscriminate since it could be infinitely large, as you describe. There needs to be one (or both) of the following: a stronger or more limited definition of a Masonic building (likely being at least a Masonic Temple based on your explanation above, as these appear to have more established requirements), or a limitation on what Masonic buildings can be include, such as the NRHP qualification or being a notable building in the first place. Both of these make the indiscriminate definition "Masonic buildings" more definitive and a stronger list on WP that is likely to be kept. Now, looking through that list, it does appear to include two additional aspects not clear by the title - either the building is notable (all blue links) or the building is on the NRHP. As such, the first para of the lead should likely better state that the elements are all either notable or NRHP-listed. Thus, I think the list is presently ok and a good discriminant one, presuming I understand your history of the Masonic building convention correctly. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO the title is so vague and ambiguous that it ends up being a non-notable topic. And a list with all of the "houses and libraries" will certainly at least get into the thousands. What the creator probably had in mind was the significant, interesting unique-looking buildings that freemasons build / rebuild specifically to use as meeting places. And then they wrote the title vaguely. The "non-notable-as-is" could provide the catalyst to decide what they want to cover, and then write a title to match what they decided. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It could simply be "List of notable Masonic buildings" (with the wikt:notable definition, not WP's) as a title to immediately improve the list without any other changes. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO the title is so vague and ambiguous that it ends up being a non-notable topic. And a list with all of the "houses and libraries" will certainly at least get into the thousands. What the creator probably had in mind was the significant, interesting unique-looking buildings that freemasons build / rebuild specifically to use as meeting places. And then they wrote the title vaguely. The "non-notable-as-is" could provide the catalyst to decide what they want to cover, and then write a title to match what they decided. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Has the list (or its defintion) been published elsewhere? If not then it fails WP:BURDEN. No wonder the editors can't agree on what it is abou, because there are no reliable, third part sources which they can follow. As far I can see, the list is comprised of primary (original) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- To the editors who are treading close to "I don't understand what the subject is, so subject is clearly not notable": If you don't know what the subject of the page is, you will not be able to determine notability. You simply cannot evaluate the notability of a subject if you do not know what the subject is.
- The discussion that determines the subject of a page is not a discussion of notability. This decision is made with our Best Editorial Judgment and subject only to consensus. Apparently the editors at the above-named list need to have that discussion. I suggest that they frame it in terms of the three standard options for defining lists, since that may simplify their lives.
- After they have decided what the list's selection criteria are, then we can tell them whether their subject is acceptable (either "notable" or "navigable"). Before then, any declarations about its status are likely to reveal more about the speakers' biases than about the page in question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but a better understanding of what is abstractly considered a notable topic for a list article (or at least how one establishes that the topic of a list article is notable) will help us determine what the article should be "about". We can eliminate those ideas that would result in a list that would be considered "not notable". Blueboar (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- But that's what WhatamIdoing is saying, it's the wrong question to ask. There are elements of notability that help to define a stand-alone list, but lists are not subject to the same expectation of notability like articles. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blueboar is wisely thinking two steps ahead: He wants to avoid having the page deleted, and therefore will advocate for whichever definition of its subject is least likely to be considered non-notable/not useful for navigation/otherwise inappropriate.
- Whether the subject is notable not necessarily the wrong question to ask, because lists are allowed (but not required) to meet the usual notability standards. I only say that now is the wrong time for other editors to be asking that question, because the definition of the subject must precede any evaluation of notability (or alternatives to notability for lists). If Blueboar chooses to define the subject with one eye on the notability standards, then that's his business. We (i.e., the regular editors at this page/anyone not helping decide the subject of the page), however, have no business declaring that the list is obviously non-notable when we don't know what the subject actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what policy you draw that conclusion from, WhatamIdoing. Where in policy or guidelines does it state or even imply that Lists are an exception to notability rules? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is no policy or guideline that states or implies that lists are exempted. There are a lot of spurious arguments in WP:ATA which might be used to justify the inclusion of lists that are not notable, but those arguments are entirely discredited. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- My point is, if the subject is that vague:
- There probably isn't RS coverage of that non-existent-due-to-vagueness subject for notability purposes. Not that I'm a 100% rule book guy, but this is a point
- If the subject is too vague to have a real notability discussion, does it stay in by default, or does notability need to be established for it to stay in?
- North8000 (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If there is no rationale for inclusion based on RS, then list will fail WP:NOT by default. Argueably there should be an equivalent to WP:CSD#A1 for list topics that do not have a defintion (even a vague one), because they lack context. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- My point is, if the subject is that vague:
- There is no policy or guideline that states or implies that lists are exempted. There are a lot of spurious arguments in WP:ATA which might be used to justify the inclusion of lists that are not notable, but those arguments are entirely discredited. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what policy you draw that conclusion from, WhatamIdoing. Where in policy or guidelines does it state or even imply that Lists are an exception to notability rules? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Most of these buildings do have RS to show they are notable individually (For example, most are on the National Register of Historic Places, which can be cited)... what I can not find is any RS to show the buildings are notable as a group... something that will indicate that a building being "Masonic" (whatever that means) is notable. This is why my questions have focused on whether we need to establish "topic" notability, as opposed to resting on individual "entry" notability. The problem is that WP:NOTE does not seem to address this issue... If WP:NOTE allows "notable items, grouped in non-notable way" then we can take the article in one direction. But if WP:NOTE requires "notable items, grouped in a notable way" we can take it in a different direction. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is why notability is tricky, and really only applies to topics, not articles or lists, particularly when we have article size limitations that force us to split content among smaller articles for a large topic. List inclusion is generally more based on being an aspect of a larger, notable topic, avoiding indiscriminate definitions or membership, and meeting all other applicable policies partiularly V/OR/POV. Ask yourself this - if there was no size limitation in our articles (as would be the case of a printed work), would one reasonably expect there to be a list of Masonic buildings contained within the overarching topic of, in this case, Freemasony possibly Masonic Temple? Certainly not an arbitrary list of any building listed as a Masonic one, given the details you've stated above, since that implies thousands of possible buildings. But an edited version that applies well-defined requirements - such as being a notable building itself or a place listed on the NRHP - seems like fair inclusion in such a long article. And because it would be included in the non-SIZE restricted version, it should be included here, just possibly as a separate article referring back to the main topic, re-establishing what the list's topic is (this being Masonic buildings).
- Now, that all said, in this specific example, I see Masonic Temple and this list, and clearly there's a lot of editing and merging that can go on, because while I will back the appropriateness of having the Masonic building list as defined presently (notable and/or NHRP-inclusion restricted), there are no SIZE issues to require a separate article. As you've explained clearly on what the various terms for Masonic buildings, it would almost make more sense to me to do two things: first, move Masonic Temple to Masonic buldings, and add in all the other terms you've introduced and the logic/rationale of why things were named (with sources). This still makes for a short article so merging the List of Masonic places as a list of examples at the bottom of the page makes a very strong and complete article, avoids unnecessary splitting, and otherwise would solve a lot of perceived problems. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO Notability requirements apply to the subject of the article, not the items in it. To again take a silly example for clarity, what if I made a list/ article on "Brown haired people that are more than 5'8" tall and less then 5'9" tall. And then the list included Elvis and Frank Sinatra and Barack Obama. The entries are notable, the topic is not. BTW, I think that with a better definition, such as "noteworthy Masonic buildings" the list./article would be notable. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's more so in this case that it is an arbitrary definition, though arguably there's also no notable topic it supports too. Lists should not be written in a non-notable topic vacuum - "List of songs by a non-notable garage band" would also be a problem. I do note that as it stands "List of Masonic buildings" is supporting a notable topic - that of either Freemasonry or Masonic Temple - even if it isn't named that way (Article titles are a completely separate issue to this point), so there's no problem there. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with North8000 that the notability requirements apply, but simply renaming the list as "noteworthy Masonic buidings" is not the answer, any more than renaming the silly example to "List of notable brown haired people". Adding noteworthy, notable or important to the title does not make it a notable list topic in the absence of verifiable evidence.
- However, Masem is incorrect: lists are not notable by inheritance.
- Going back to Blueboar's example, does he know, at the very least, if there is evidence that the list has been published by reliable source or, better still, that the list has a sourced defintion? Before a list topic can be included in Wikipedia, there must be evidence that the topic already been published, at least in part, otherwise he risks falling into the trap of presenting primary (original) research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- We do not require lists to have been already published once before, just as we don't expect the text of notable articles to have been published as a whole in a single location before. Lists can be made from an agglomeration of sources as long as there is clear definition of when an item can be included, just as we do for including any source in article text bodies. And again, notability is not the end-all, be-all of inclusion. If the community wants the list to be included, it will be regardless of notability; this point is shown over and over again via lists keep at AFD. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, you have not answered my point that lists are not notable by inheritance. List articles are the same as any other mainspace page: they have to provide evidence that they the list topic is notable in its own right . The only alternative to notability is subjective importance, and this is not accepted by the community. Notability is therefor the end-all, be all of inclusion - there is no workable alternative. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- We do not require lists to have been already published once before, just as we don't expect the text of notable articles to have been published as a whole in a single location before. Lists can be made from an agglomeration of sources as long as there is clear definition of when an item can be included, just as we do for including any source in article text bodies. And again, notability is not the end-all, be-all of inclusion. If the community wants the list to be included, it will be regardless of notability; this point is shown over and over again via lists keep at AFD. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's more so in this case that it is an arbitrary definition, though arguably there's also no notable topic it supports too. Lists should not be written in a non-notable topic vacuum - "List of songs by a non-notable garage band" would also be a problem. I do note that as it stands "List of Masonic buildings" is supporting a notable topic - that of either Freemasonry or Masonic Temple - even if it isn't named that way (Article titles are a completely separate issue to this point), so there's no problem there. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- To answer Gavin... No... there is no published definition of a "Masonic building" that I know of... nor do I know of a source that discusses "Masonic buildings" as such. There are sources that discuss specific buildings that happen to be Masonic. And I think he makes a valid point about Notability not being inherited.
- However, Masem makes a valid point about the community's wishes. As I mentioned at the start of the thread, this list has already survived an AfD, despite the fact that there is no clear definition of what a "Masonic building" is... The community thinks a "List of Masonic buildings" is worth having... so the question is... given that, what next. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, no. Notability does one thing: "A topic is notable, therefore it may have a stand-alone article". It doesn't limit content, it doesn't limit multiple articles on different aspects of the topic, and so forth. It is also not the only metric for inclusion in a highly-subjective work like WP. Inheritance is a red herring here (it would be if one was arguing that Masonic Temple X was notable because the topic Masonic Temples was noatable; we are no where close to that type of discussion/logic). A list of notable Masonic buildings is part of the coverage of the larger topic of Masonic buildings, and thus would be reasonable to include, and has community backing for its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the article, I guess you could say that the de facto subject is "List of significant Masonic buildings" despite the title not accurately saying that. Such a dicotomy/difference is not unusual in Wikipedia. And that the original article / list was set up with that "de facto" definition in mind, and judged by the AFD community based on the de facto subject and content. I think that the one difference between lists and articles is that in a list article, by nature, the title can seemingly define the "rules for content" more so than with a regular article. Whether or not it is precisely written enough, consensused enough or in reality does exert that control is another question. PS: I deliberately did not learn which persons have which views on this. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, no. Notability does one thing: "A topic is notable, therefore it may have a stand-alone article". It doesn't limit content, it doesn't limit multiple articles on different aspects of the topic, and so forth. It is also not the only metric for inclusion in a highly-subjective work like WP. Inheritance is a red herring here (it would be if one was arguing that Masonic Temple X was notable because the topic Masonic Temples was noatable; we are no where close to that type of discussion/logic). A list of notable Masonic buildings is part of the coverage of the larger topic of Masonic buildings, and thus would be reasonable to include, and has community backing for its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO Notability requirements apply to the subject of the article, not the items in it. To again take a silly example for clarity, what if I made a list/ article on "Brown haired people that are more than 5'8" tall and less then 5'9" tall. And then the list included Elvis and Frank Sinatra and Barack Obama. The entries are notable, the topic is not. BTW, I think that with a better definition, such as "noteworthy Masonic buildings" the list./article would be notable. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- But that's what WhatamIdoing is saying, it's the wrong question to ask. There are elements of notability that help to define a stand-alone list, but lists are not subject to the same expectation of notability like articles. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but a better understanding of what is abstractly considered a notable topic for a list article (or at least how one establishes that the topic of a list article is notable) will help us determine what the article should be "about". We can eliminate those ideas that would result in a list that would be considered "not notable". Blueboar (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with North8000 that the de facto subject or topic of a list is its title in the absence of a defintion. Lists are barebone articles, and the title is a barebone defintion that sets the "rules for content". So to justify the inclusion of a list topic in Wikipedia, either the title or the definition of the list has to be the subject of reliable sources in its own right.
Masem and myself have an ongoing disagreement about spinout articles and lists. Masem contends that a spinout doesn't need to demonstrate notability in its own right because they are "part of the coverage of the larger topic", but my view is that is just another version of the (spurious) argument that lists and articles inherit notability form each other - on this he and I will have to agree to disagree.
In answer to Blueboar, I can't see that being kept at WP:AFD is a valid criteria for article inclusion. An analogy here is just because we can't agree to throw our garbage out today, that does not mean that we should keep garbage in the house forever. In the long run, the only defense against deletion is evidence of notability: I have never seen a topic that is notable in its own right nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. I thing the reason why listcruft is not deleted on sight is that it is impossible to prove that a list is not notable, nor is it possible to prove that it is primary research.
So I put it back to Blueboar, if the community has a blanket prohibition against article and list topics that fail WP:NOT, does that mean you are going to ignore that prohibition? I think you will find the only way to prove that a list topic is not listcruft, or to prove that a list is a platform for primary research is to provide supporting evidence from a reliable source to demonstrate that is neither of these. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that supporting evidence is required... but evidence of what? That each building is notable? That each building is notable as a Masonic building? That the term "Masonic building" is notable? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin: this statement: I can't see that being kept at WP:AFD is a valid criteria for article inclusion. shows a severe lack of good faith and understanding of consensus driving policy and guidelines. WP, as long as it promotes open editing by anyone, will always be subjective and will never be objective in the manner you want.
- Blueboar: We have evidence that Masonic buildings (the term) is a notable topic (though in this, I'd expand out Masonic Temple to add in the other types of buildings. Thus, the only evidence needed for the list is that each building in question is considered Masonic and then either it's a notable (presumely evidenced by the blue link establishing the notability of the building) or is NRHP-listed (needs one source). That validates each building as being part of a list that is used in conjunction with a notable topic. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- We have evidence that Masonic buildings (the term) is a notable topic... we do? What? Where? Because I have not found any after extensive searching. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, let me clarify. I would think the term "Masonic building" is a notable term based on the history you described above, and searching through Google Books/Scholar. That does actually need to be shown as Masonic Temple (the core of this) is woefully undersourced. I get the impression (via common sense) it is a notable topic, but it just isn't shown to be that way. So you are right that technically we have no direct evidence that "Masonic building" is notable, but common sense , plus the recent AFD suggests the term is notable by consensus. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- We have evidence that Masonic buildings (the term) is a notable topic... we do? What? Where? Because I have not found any after extensive searching. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, you have thrown yourself into dangerous waters. Whether Masonic buildings are notable is an entirely seperate issue, and there isn't any article in existence (and hence no evidence to evaluate your claims) at this time. More to the point, if a "List of Masonic buildings" has not been published by a reliable source, then I think Masem would have to admit that such a list won't have a published definition either, nor could it have used as a source for any Wikipedia article about a related topic (even a notable one, if one existed).
- I put the question back to Blueboar, if there is no evidence to show that such a list has ever been been published, defined or commented on by a reliable source, then surely creating an entirely novel or original list topic within Wikipedia as a substitute or a proxy for a published source contravenes Wikipedia's prohibition against primary (original) research? Claims that a list has subjective importance have been extensively discredited, as have other spurious arguments at WP:ATA and in essays elsewhere. Evidence needs to be provided that either the list has already been published or that its defintion has been published, otherwise it is open to the accusation that it has been madeup. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No it's not a separate issue. It is core to understanding that a "list of Masonic buildings" is not a piece of indiscriminate information for Wikipedia, establishing the list as appropriate coverage of the term "Masonic buildings" (which notability cannot limit, once that term is shown notable). And it has been well rejected in past discussions that a list nor its definition needs to have been published before to be included. Our standard is verifiability and the choice of an appropriate non-indiscriminate definition, both which are well met by "List of Masonic buildings" based on the presumption that "Masonic buildings" is a notable term. Again the hypothetical situation: if we had no size issue and Masonic buildings was a notable term, we'd be including this list within it, so there's no suddenly magical change that happens because it is being a stand alone list. (Mind you: I do argue that there is a merge that should happen to strength the list and the Masonic Temple/buildings articles, but that doesn't change the logic for allowing the list in the first place). --MASEM (t) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- We have evidence that Masonic buildings (the term) is a notable topic... we do? What? Where? Because I have not found any after extensive searching. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that supporting evidence is required... but evidence of what? That each building is notable? That each building is notable as a Masonic building? That the term "Masonic building" is notable? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah yes... assumption... that has been a problem with many Freemasonry related articles. I admit, it is logical to assume that "Masonic buildings" is a notable topic... It is logical to assume that someone has written about them... unfortunately, the reality does not back this assumption. I was actually guilty of this myself... I was the one who started the Masonic Temple article... and I too assumed there would be sources that discussed the term and the buildings. Instead, what I found was that while many sources use the term in passing, no sources discuss the topic in any detail. I found a few books with the term "Masonic Temple" in their titles... but all were either about a specific Masonic Temple... or about peripheral topics like masonic symbolism. But again, none that discussed the topic in any sort of depth. When I realized that I did not have enough sources to support an article, I put it up for deletion... Unfortunately, no one was willing to believe that I had actually looked at the sources and found them wanting. No one at the AfD could get passed their own assumptions that there must be reliable sources out there... somewhere. Thus we ended up with Notablity by consensus... but not by sourcing. I suspect the same is happening with this list article.
- This is actually a common occurrence with Freemasonry articles. Freemasonry is a fascinating topic to most people... it's mysterious... it's "cool"... they want to know more. So there is an instinctive "ILIKEIT" reaction that must be overcome whenever a Masonic topic comes up at AfD. People feel that anything related to Freemasonry must be notable... and they assume that there must be lots written on any Masonic topic. The reality is quite different. There is a lot written about Masonry's history and origins... and there is a lot about how Masonry is some great conspiracy out to destroy everything the author holds dear. But there really isn't all that much once you get beyond those two topics. there used to be a "Fight Club" mentality among Masons... Until very recently, Freemasons were reluctant to discuss Freemasonry with non-masons, and this was taken to extremes... even marginally related topics were not discussed. Thus the very people who might have written reliable source material about the Masonic topics refused to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am willing to state that "List of Masonic buildings" should not exist if "Masonic buildings" or "Masonic Temple" is not notable. I think to me this is the core of the argument. If "List of X" (X being a singular concept) is not notable itself, then X better be a notable topic to allow for "List of X", otherwise its listcruft. This rule doesn't always work if X is a complex argument, but in this case, it clearly applies.
- My recommendation is to figure out a way to strengthen your argument that Masonic Temples and buildings, despite the number of sources, don't give any depth of coverage. I can sorta see that considering the Freemasons as a "secret society" thus all their laws and bylaws being verbal and not for public use. Alternatively, make the argument to merge the Masonic buildings into the Freemasonry article, since it is not very notable based on your research. Right now, the consensus is for keeping it; and if you feel both the main Masonic Temple and the list of Masonic buildings really shouldn't be include, strengthen your arguments to merge or delete them. I don't think there's anything we can do otherwise from a notability statement to push that one direction or the other. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:Notability is not determined by the title. Observant editors will notice that the word "title" does not appear anywhere in the text of WP:N.
- The WP:Article title is not (necessarily) the subject of the page. It is not necessary for the title to precisely match the subject. In fact, given the list selection criteria in place at some pages, it would be silly, and result in titles like "List of professional British footballers that have been on the payroll while the team played at least 100 games, even though this player might not have played in every single one of those games, and for which we have already written Wikipedia article(s)". You will find the title in the URL; you should find the subject in the WP:LEAD.
- If you don't know what the subject is, you cannot determine whether the subject is notable. It looks like this: "I'm thinking of a secret number. Tell me, does my secret number match the standards set on the Secret Number Standards page, which specify that all secret numbers on Wikipedia must have four digits?" If your response is anything other than "I don't know, because you didn't tell me what your secret number is", then you've screwed up (and I've got a lot of prime Florida real estate I'd like to sell you). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the particular article, if you give this a "gut check" (which I suspect past AFD community did and future ones would do) I think you come out with this: The content of the article (Masonic buildings) is obviously closely and naturaly associated with the subject & title, (Masonic Buildings), and visa versa, so the notability of the content counts towards the notability of the subject /title. It's also a substantive and interesting topic. So they decide to keep it. Sometimes "unwikipedian" common sense works better than the granular level rule book. Actually "unwikipedian common sense" really is wikipedian, because Wikipedia calls for submitting things for group consensus. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK... would the following be an accurate statement: In an article entitled "List of <adjectival phrase>", the topic of the article is presumed to be <adjectival phrase>... so, to comply with WP:NOTE, we need to establish that <adjectival phrase> is a notable topic (probably in the lede of the article). Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a quick and dirty rule, yes, that's fair. Note that there's still other concerns: if, for "List of X", the article on X is short, there is no reason to have a separate "List of X" just because we can (which is what I would argue for this case on Masonic buildings). --MASEM (t) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have do disagree. If two article share identical sources, then one of them must be a content fork by logical deduction. The fact that one may be a list article, and the other may be a stand alone article is irrelevant. One is a notable topic, based on reliable sources, but the other will be a content fork, based on a category mistake. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No that is wrong. Just because two article share a number of sources in common does not mean one forks the other. Sharing common sources is a symptom of content forks but not the only measure of that determination. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, it stands to reason. If two articles share the same sources, one must a duplicate. I just pinched myself to check that I am not dreaming, but still your argument makes no sense. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, you're making the logical fallacy. Just because two articles use exactly the same sources (no more, no less) does not mean there is forking, it only means they share the same sources. Of course there's a good chance we have duplication information, but it could also be the case that the reason the two articles share exactly the same sources is that they were once the same article but too large per size requirements, and thus split at a logical point, with the result that the same set of sources are used in both articles. There are reasons for that situation to happen beyond your "content fork" issue. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gavin, you're not thinking through all of the possibilities. A page that was split because of size issues might use the same sources, and not be a content fork. History of medicine might use the same sources as Medicine, and still not be a content fork. In a few weeks, I hope that Urban contemporary gospel, Traditional black gospel, and Jubilee quartets will use the same sources -- but they're still different musical forms (even though I've found a fantastic source that discusses all three). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, you're making the logical fallacy. Just because two articles use exactly the same sources (no more, no less) does not mean there is forking, it only means they share the same sources. Of course there's a good chance we have duplication information, but it could also be the case that the reason the two articles share exactly the same sources is that they were once the same article but too large per size requirements, and thus split at a logical point, with the result that the same set of sources are used in both articles. There are reasons for that situation to happen beyond your "content fork" issue. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Masem, it stands to reason. If two articles share the same sources, one must a duplicate. I just pinched myself to check that I am not dreaming, but still your argument makes no sense. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No that is wrong. Just because two article share a number of sources in common does not mean one forks the other. Sharing common sources is a symptom of content forks but not the only measure of that determination. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have do disagree. If two article share identical sources, then one of them must be a content fork by logical deduction. The fact that one may be a list article, and the other may be a stand alone article is irrelevant. One is a notable topic, based on reliable sources, but the other will be a content fork, based on a category mistake. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a quick and dirty rule, yes, that's fair. Note that there's still other concerns: if, for "List of X", the article on X is short, there is no reason to have a separate "List of X" just because we can (which is what I would argue for this case on Masonic buildings). --MASEM (t) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK... would the following be an accurate statement: In an article entitled "List of <adjectival phrase>", the topic of the article is presumed to be <adjectival phrase>... so, to comply with WP:NOTE, we need to establish that <adjectival phrase> is a notable topic (probably in the lede of the article). Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- What a bizarre argument! If two articles share a common source, one must be a content fork (thus I assume bad). At the risk of subjecting my favorite subject to attack, let’s take the case of Yellowstone, clearly a notable subject. Currently there are ~274 articles directly related to the Yellowstone article in a tangible way. There are 10 historical event articles, 53 biographies, 5 organizational, 79 geography, 75 geology, 11 biology, 22 historic district/building, 3 recreational, and 16 community related articles. A great many of these articles share the same sources. Are they all content forks? Although I haven’t checked, it is conceivable that Yellowstone and the National Park Service share the same sources (if they don’t they certainly could). The NPS certainly could share the same source with the United States Department of the Interior which might share a source with United States federal executive departments. This could go on up to the Universe. I guess he who uses the source first gets the content, while the rest gets the fork? Bizarre logic.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blueboar, it's reasonable to assume that "<phrase>" is the subject of the "List of <phrase>", but it is still merely an assumption. A notability determination rests on verifiable evidence, not easy assumptions. WP:SAL goes on at some length about the role of the WP:LEAD in describing the actual criteria for selecting entries in a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- To be specific WP:LSC describes the actual criteria for selecting entries in a list. I think the case Blueboar is trying to describe, and instance of content forking I was refering to, where there is an article called "Masonic building" that has a defintion ("A Masonic building is an edifice contructed using the funds provided by one or more masonic lodges...") and the "List of Masonic buildings" uses the same defintion to justify its existence. Perhaps Blueboar needs to clarify what he meant.
- Going back to the example of List of Masonic buildings, we can say, based on the sources available at this time, that it or anything like it has not been published anywhere outside of Wikipedia. There is no article about Masonic buildings, so there is no working definiton of a Masonic building. We can logically deduce therefore that there is no defintion available to us to define what a list of such buildings might contain, and there is no published equivalent which could be used as a crib.
- If this list topic is not the subject of any reliable source, then we say "there is no evidence of notability at this time". We can't say "its not notable", because we can't prove this. Equally, we can't prove that it fails WP:NOT#DIR, and we can't prove it is primary (unpublished) research. But we can call a spade a spade, and say there is no rationale for inclusion of such a list in Wikipedia. However, many editors won't except this because there is no proof that it does not belong, and this is where editorial opinion is divided on this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely wrong. It is long established that WP editors have a reasonable amount of editorial synthesis to assemble the content of a notable topic in a manner best suited to disseminate the combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to the reader, including creating lists from collective sources that are appropriate for that topic per all other content guidelines. When SIZE comes into play, moving that list to a new article is neither a content fork (even if it reuses the same references, this is actually good to do this to stay consistent) nor introducing unacceptable original research that is otherwise fine in a larger context. Any other argument is missing the point of what SIZE restrictions require us to do in an electronic work.
- There are really only three issue with the list of Masonic building article that I can identify.
- Notability of the topic "Masonic buildings" is presently based on an AFD consensus; it should (must be?) improved with sources to prevent that ever being requestioned. This is probably the most critical issue to be solved.
- Ensuring the list is not indiscriminate, which as I've stated: restricting to only other notable buildings or those on the NRHP seems to achieve this, so it's not much of an issue but one to worry about
- Was this a necessary spinout due to SIZE, or was the list simply created before there was an article it supported? My understanding is that it is the latter, and clearly nothing is near SIZE. It is completely reasonable to suggest a merge for the two articles (again, working that we treat Masonic buildings as notable due to the AFD) since SIZE doesn't seem an issue yet. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Alas, being kept at WP:AFD is not a valid inclusion criteria for a list: that would be an example of the tail wagging the dog. In the absence of any verifiable evidence that the list topic is notable, there is no rationale for its inculsion as a standalone list article in Wikipedia at this time. As explained earlier, it is impossible to prove that the list fails WP:NOT, but on the other hand, your argument that this list topic "truly" exists (WP:ITEXISTS) is invalid, since the List of Masonic buildings has neither been defined nor has it ever been compiled by a reliable source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus drives policy and guidelines, not the reverse despite how much you'd like it to be. If AFD says it should be kept, it is kept. Period. That is the fundamental principle of the open editing nature of WP. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that Masem; you should assume good faith. Remember that article deletion is a seperate process from topic inclusion. The are lots of lists that get deleted at AFD, as well as kept. I don't subscribe to the view that just because one or even a hundred lists have been deleted demonstrates anything other than...it was the consensus this was the right thing to do. What is needed is verifiable evidence that the List of Masonic buildings is a notable list topic. But there is none at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, you are very much mistaken. Article deletion and topic inclusion are very closely related because the results of consensus from AFD lead us to developed the guidelines for topic inclusion. That's how WP:N was born. That's how most of the SNGs were born. That is consensus driving policy, one of the few fundamental principles that WP was developed on. You don't like it, obviously, as you clearly want more objective standards. Unfortunately, current consensus is far from that point, and will remain far as long as anyone in the world can participate in the discussion, creating a work that is a culmination of the subjective expertise of its editors. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Article deletion and topic inclusion are very closely related, but not in the "Pushmepullyou" way that you suggest. Deletion policy is influenced by the notability guideline, but not dictated by it: this is made clear in the section Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. But the relationship is a one way street: there is no policy or guideline that says or event suggests that deletion discussions are a valid criteria for article inclusion. That is purely your invention. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, you are very much mistaken. Article deletion and topic inclusion are very closely related because the results of consensus from AFD lead us to developed the guidelines for topic inclusion. That's how WP:N was born. That's how most of the SNGs were born. That is consensus driving policy, one of the few fundamental principles that WP was developed on. You don't like it, obviously, as you clearly want more objective standards. Unfortunately, current consensus is far from that point, and will remain far as long as anyone in the world can participate in the discussion, creating a work that is a culmination of the subjective expertise of its editors. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that Masem; you should assume good faith. Remember that article deletion is a seperate process from topic inclusion. The are lots of lists that get deleted at AFD, as well as kept. I don't subscribe to the view that just because one or even a hundred lists have been deleted demonstrates anything other than...it was the consensus this was the right thing to do. What is needed is verifiable evidence that the List of Masonic buildings is a notable list topic. But there is none at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus drives policy and guidelines, not the reverse despite how much you'd like it to be. If AFD says it should be kept, it is kept. Period. That is the fundamental principle of the open editing nature of WP. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Alas, being kept at WP:AFD is not a valid inclusion criteria for a list: that would be an example of the tail wagging the dog. In the absence of any verifiable evidence that the list topic is notable, there is no rationale for its inculsion as a standalone list article in Wikipedia at this time. As explained earlier, it is impossible to prove that the list fails WP:NOT, but on the other hand, your argument that this list topic "truly" exists (WP:ITEXISTS) is invalid, since the List of Masonic buildings has neither been defined nor has it ever been compiled by a reliable source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
random break
Well, I am not really trying to ask whether a specific list article passes WP:NOTE ... I am trying to understand how one establishes notability in list articles in general, and using a specific list article to illustrate the issue. I was trying to see if we could derive a "rule of thumb" from this discussion... something that would help me better understand how WP:NOTE applies to any list article, not just the one I am working on. From the comments so far, it seemed that everyone was agreeing that in [[List of <phrase>]] the topic is <phrase> ... My understanding of WP:NOTE would indicate the notability of <phrase> is therefore what needs to be established. For a stand alone list this is best done in the lede... for a non-stand-alone list, this can probably be done at the related article (ie when you have [[<phrase>]] and [[List of <phrase>]], you don't necessarily have to establish notability at both the article and the list). Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
If my "rule of thumb" is correct, then for List of Masonic buildings, what we need to establish is that "Masonic buildings" is a notable topic. This might be done in a new article on Masonic buildings... or in the lede of the list article... but that is what needs to be done. Whether that can be done (or not) is a second, related issue, but that is more an issue for the list's talk page, and not really the focus of my query here. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree, provided it is notable. Since "Masonic buildings" is effectively a category, I would expect a book about them to contain a list of such buildings that could be included in that category, even if only as an appendix or in the index. I can't imagine such a book not to contain such a list, but if it did not, then the list would not be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blueboar, I believe you have the stated list construct aptly. If the general subject of the list, ie the Phrase as you called it, is notable (supported by reliable sources) and the list lead establishes inclusion criteria that allows individual entries to be verified against that criteria, then the list is suitable (notable) for WP. Lists are articles, but they are also navigational and organizational elements of WP. They complement categories. They serve a very useful developmental role in building the encyclopedia. As such, it would be ludicuous to require an entire list to have been previously published as such as a prequisite to inclusion in WP.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would not go that far. WP:USEFUL is not a valid inclusion criteria if it fails WP:NOT. I could be mistaken, but I don't think he subscribes to the view that it is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- For list articles, we need to establish that the list itself is a notable topic. For example we can have a list of Masonic buildings if and only if the collection of buildings has been commented on by reliable sources. For this particular example there isn't much of a difference between a list article and a more general article on masonic buildings, but there are other cases where the list's topic is clearly notable and the list itself is clearly not. In the end it all comes down to sources. If a list has been commented on by reliable sources we should publish it (AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies is an extremely notable example) and if a list hasn't been we shouldn't create it. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This does not hold up through AFD results and common sense. There are plenty of lists in existence that have been reviewed by AFD where the concept of the list itself is not notable (like List of Masonic buildings) but is kept because it mets all other inclusion and content policies. The list would be acceptable if part of a "Masonic buildings" article, and thus is acceptable (beyond whether it really needed to be split out) as a stand alone list. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's quite a shame about the AfD results :\ Hopefully consensus will change regarding this in the future and our notability guidelines will be applied equally to lists. Currently our list articles on the whole are some of the scrappiest on Wikipedia and the problem isn't what's inside them, it's that so many of their subjects are unencyclopedic from the outset. ThemFromSpace 03:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- AFD results are the primary source of consensus. To doubt them throws a lot of bad faith onto the project. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- They aren't a source of consensus, primarly because nobody can provide a definitive interpretation what the AFD results mean, whereas policies and guidelines are clear, explicit and have been endorsed by the community over many years and represent the strongest form of concensus that we have. Policy and guidelines determine how AFD discussions take place, not the other way around. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly the job of non-involved closing admins, to evaluate consensus. And while a good AFD argument will cite policy and guideline, participants and the closing admin are free to ignore all rules in cases where consensus is inconsistent with policies and guidelines, thus forming a new consensus. AFD is how we measure current consensus since it can change over time, and the most direct measure of it in practical applications. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- They are indeed free to ignore all the rules, but there is no evidence to suggest that the "List of Masonic buildings" is notable, and that is the only set of inclusion criteria in Wikipedia. If you want to propose an exemption for this list, why not make a formal proposal to this effect? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly the job of non-involved closing admins, to evaluate consensus. And while a good AFD argument will cite policy and guideline, participants and the closing admin are free to ignore all rules in cases where consensus is inconsistent with policies and guidelines, thus forming a new consensus. AFD is how we measure current consensus since it can change over time, and the most direct measure of it in practical applications. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- They aren't a source of consensus, primarly because nobody can provide a definitive interpretation what the AFD results mean, whereas policies and guidelines are clear, explicit and have been endorsed by the community over many years and represent the strongest form of concensus that we have. Policy and guidelines determine how AFD discussions take place, not the other way around. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- AFD results are the primary source of consensus. To doubt them throws a lot of bad faith onto the project. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's quite a shame about the AfD results :\ Hopefully consensus will change regarding this in the future and our notability guidelines will be applied equally to lists. Currently our list articles on the whole are some of the scrappiest on Wikipedia and the problem isn't what's inside them, it's that so many of their subjects are unencyclopedic from the outset. ThemFromSpace 03:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This does not hold up through AFD results and common sense. There are plenty of lists in existence that have been reviewed by AFD where the concept of the list itself is not notable (like List of Masonic buildings) but is kept because it mets all other inclusion and content policies. The list would be acceptable if part of a "Masonic buildings" article, and thus is acceptable (beyond whether it really needed to be split out) as a stand alone list. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposal re: List articles.
Based on the discussions above, I propose we add something like the following:
- Establishing notability for list articles
- The topic of a list article needs to have its notability established, no less than any other article. However, when a list derives directly from a related article, it is not always necessary to do so on the actual list page (although it is never wrong to do so). If there is an existing article about topic "X", and the notability of "X" is properly established at that article, it is not necessary to re-establish notability in a list article entitled List of X.
- Topic notability does need to be established at the list page for stand-alone lists. If you write a List of Y where there is no article that establishes the notability of topic "Y", then you must establish that the topic "Y" is notable on the list page. This is best done in a short lede paragraph preceding the list itself. Notability is established through reference to reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
- Please do not confuse the notability of the individual items listed with the notability of the list's topic. It is possible to have a notable list topic that is entirely populated by non-notable items, and it is possible to have a non-notable list topic that is populated by notable items. In the latter case, notability is not inherited.
Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- First, this is thinking backwards (though not wrong). Notability determines when a topic should have its own article; it is not the reverse that an article is required to be a notable topic in of itself (as there are many possible unwritten metrics for inclusion beyond notability). Thus, I don't think this is fair advice to give on this page, but instead over on WP:SAL, in most of what the rest you said is true; articles in the style of "List of X" typically presume that X is a notable topic. It may rarely be the case that "List of X" itself is a notable topic, but that's not a requirement. Outside of such cases, "List of X" -type articles should provide a reintroduction to X and establish X being notable in some way. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)The last paragraph seems wrong, or perhaps mis-phrased. The two cases:
- A notable list topic entirely populated by non-notable items: I sincerely doubt this is possible. For example, if I find a list on a school, TV station, or town of "Current Residents/Alumni/etc." and there are non-notable people on the list, I delete them, as I'm fairly sure policy requires (per WP:NOT, and sometimes WP:BLP). Notability for inclusion on a list is lower than stand-alone article criteria, but there must be some level of importance to be included. If removing all such people meant the list was empty, then I would delete the list. If this were a stand-alone list, I'd AfD the article.
- A non-notable list topic populated by notable items: When you follow this with "notability is not inherited," I'm assuming you mean, based on what you wrote in the previous paragraphs, that such a list is non-notable, and therefore subject to deletion. I think clarifying that in the last sentence is necessary, otherwise, I actually read that sentence as implying that such lists are acceptable.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point I was trying to make in the last paragraph was that the notability of the topic is a separate issue from the notability of the items listed. Yes, it is likely that a notable list topic will have notable items populating it and vise-versa, but there are exceptions... and a notable population does not automatically equate to a notable topic or vise-versa. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Re Masem's statement that "it is not the reverse that an article is required to be a notable topic in of itself (as there are many possible unwritten metrics for inclusion beyond notability)." Can you give me an example? Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point is: it is not true that all articles need to meet notability guidelines, as there are many different types of articles that can exist in mainspace. The only thing notability gives us is this logical relationship: "Topic X is notable" therefore "An article on X is acceptable". It does not say anything about the reverse logic; we may have articles with a topic X where X isn't notable but the article is acceptable due to other reasons such as lists, spinouts, navigation aids, and so forth. This is a reason notability is a highly highly subjective guideline. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is true that all articles need to meet notability guidelines, because there isn't any alternative inclusion criteria that has been accepted by the community. Notability is subjective, but we make subjective judgement about a topic's notability based on verifable evidence. It is is about time for Masem to accept this principle, as it is the consenus that alternative inclusion criteria based on subjective importance such as usefulness have been discredited and are not accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Usefulness", or the lack therof, has never been rejected as an argument to use in deletion discussions or elsewhere. The very essay you linked to says: "There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a fair point, but I think you will have to agree that there is a presumption is that a list is already notable, and is "useful" because a reliable source thinks it is useful too. If a topic like Masonic buildings does not exist, or there is no evidence to suggest that a List of Masonic buildings has ever been published, let alone notable, then no one in the real world has found it "useful". If a list article has not been published, defined or commented upon by a reliable source in the real world, then it is not going to be anymore useful as a list article within Wikipedia.
- Simply put, if a list topic is not notable, it is only useful within the context of Wikipedia if it used as a basis for a category. I think you will have to concede that not every category would make a "useful" list, and this is the problem with this list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, and yes. I don't think explicit publication of the list itself in reliable sources is a particularly good criterion to determine a list's usefulness. For instance, I am not sure whether a comprehensive list of all the stations on the London Underground has been published, unless you call the tube map a list where the entries are sorted geographically in two dimensions, none of the sources cited point to a single source containing that list. I am even more sure that no source has explicitly named the list: "List of London Underground stations", and presented them in the table format we have. Nonetheless, I find it hard to argue that our List of London Underground stations is not a useful article. On your second point, I agree that not all categories make useful lists. I have never argued for such a radically inclusionist viewpoint though, so I can't really call that a "concession" though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not understanding you position. If you don't think explicit publication of the list itself in reliable sources is a particularly good criterion to determine a list's usefulness, how could you justify the list's usefulness or inclusion if it or its defintion has not been published at all? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I endorse the explanations in the WP:LIST guideline which tells us how a list can be useful and a valid entry on Wikipedia. They are: 1) Information; 2) Navigation; 3) Development. It is important to distinguish between the article title, and the article subject. For example the title of the list I mentioned is "List of London Underground stations", but not the subject. Writing up an article where "list of London Underground stations" is the subject would go something like:
- A list of London Underground stations is a comprehensive catalogue which includes entries for all operative stations on the London Underground system. Such a list may tell in which zones the stations lie in, and which lines serve the station, and the entries may be sorted in alphabetical order, or by its annual passenger usage.
- Such an article would be a rather silly idea, not least because it probably wouldn't include the list itself, and the fact that there is nothing analytical to say about the list would make such an article a total violation of WP:NOR. However, the subject of the article we do have is not the list itself, the subject is tube stations. The list's inclusion on basis of notability is justified by the fact that the subject of tube stations is notable. The "list of" in the title and the list format is an aid to our readers telling them that the bulk of the article is in list form. The article's presence is justified by it being a useful navigational tool and a reasonable summary of basic information. The definition of "London Underground station" is rather obvious, and only a rules-lawyer would challenge an article based on that "London Underground station" isn't properly defined.
- There are cases where the list criterion is ill-defined, and I have successfully challenged lists based on that (example), but in many cases the list's criterion is self-evident. Regarding the "masonic buildings" example, architecture is not a subject I have much interest in, and it's not a subject which I have studied. At first glance, I cannot tell whether that is a good list or a bad list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I endorse the explanations in the WP:LIST guideline which tells us how a list can be useful and a valid entry on Wikipedia. They are: 1) Information; 2) Navigation; 3) Development. It is important to distinguish between the article title, and the article subject. For example the title of the list I mentioned is "List of London Underground stations", but not the subject. Writing up an article where "list of London Underground stations" is the subject would go something like:
- I am not understanding you position. If you don't think explicit publication of the list itself in reliable sources is a particularly good criterion to determine a list's usefulness, how could you justify the list's usefulness or inclusion if it or its defintion has not been published at all? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, and yes. I don't think explicit publication of the list itself in reliable sources is a particularly good criterion to determine a list's usefulness. For instance, I am not sure whether a comprehensive list of all the stations on the London Underground has been published, unless you call the tube map a list where the entries are sorted geographically in two dimensions, none of the sources cited point to a single source containing that list. I am even more sure that no source has explicitly named the list: "List of London Underground stations", and presented them in the table format we have. Nonetheless, I find it hard to argue that our List of London Underground stations is not a useful article. On your second point, I agree that not all categories make useful lists. I have never argued for such a radically inclusionist viewpoint though, so I can't really call that a "concession" though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Usefulness", or the lack therof, has never been rejected as an argument to use in deletion discussions or elsewhere. The very essay you linked to says: "There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is true that all articles need to meet notability guidelines, because there isn't any alternative inclusion criteria that has been accepted by the community. Notability is subjective, but we make subjective judgement about a topic's notability based on verifable evidence. It is is about time for Masem to accept this principle, as it is the consenus that alternative inclusion criteria based on subjective importance such as usefulness have been discredited and are not accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The point is: it is not true that all articles need to meet notability guidelines, as there are many different types of articles that can exist in mainspace. The only thing notability gives us is this logical relationship: "Topic X is notable" therefore "An article on X is acceptable". It does not say anything about the reverse logic; we may have articles with a topic X where X isn't notable but the article is acceptable due to other reasons such as lists, spinouts, navigation aids, and so forth. This is a reason notability is a highly highly subjective guideline. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Anatomy of a List Article
The following is a simplified list with relevance to notability annotated.
List of 20th Century Foos (article title, conveys topic (or subject) of article concisely. Does not have to be supported by sources.)
This is a list of 20th Century Foos. (This is the lead. It establishes inclusion criteria and should be sourced sufficiently to establish that the subject of Foo is notable. If there is an article on Foo in WP it should be linked here. If there is no Foo article, then sources must establish the notability of Foo as a subject.)
Foos are strange little things that abound anywhere foo-bahs reside. (If Foos need explaination, it should be included in the lead and content sourced with reliable sources.)
- Foo1 (Foo1 is notable as it has an article. No additional source necessary but if present, OK, content of Foo1 article must validate list inclusion criteria)
- Foo2 <ref></ref> (Foo2 may or may not be notable in its own right and there is no WP article yet, but its existence as a 20th century Foo is supported by sources, thus the <ref> tag.
See also
- List of 19th Century Foos (related Foo articles are listed)
- Template:Foos in history (If there is a Foo nav template, it should be included to establish a broader context for the list.)
Our guidelines re Notability and Lists need to support the above construct.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to why the topic doesn't need sources. As with all other articles, the title (ie the subject) must be defined through reliable sources, as per WP:V and WP:N. Doing otherwise when no such sources exist is original research. When it comes to notability, the list itself has to be notable. The individual items within it need not be notable, and theoretically the list's topic doesn't have to be notable either (although it would be nearly impossible for a topic to fail the notability guidelines when the topic's list meets it). ThemFromSpace 02:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point. Lists (along with many other types of articles) are not subject to the usual notability requirements, as we've established. Instead, the basis of lists is how well they avoid an indiscriminate collection of information (partially defined through WP:NOT) without becoming overly specific. If they are too indiscriminate, they won't be kept. If they define their contents too tightly ("List of men over 6 feet tall named John"), they won't be kept.
- Now I can flip the question to how best to define indiscriminate collections, and one key factor to avoid this is notability of the part of topic X that the list covers. There are four possible cases:
- It could be that the list itself is notable, (like the AFI movie lists), thus assuredly it will be discriminate and kept. This is the only "sure" bet for list retention.
- The list itself may not be notable, but the topic X it covers is; this helps the argument about being a discriminating list since we've identified that its part of a topic that WP covers - it could still be challenged if it is a minor aspect of the topic, or itself still overly indiscriminate (for example, in the case in List of Masonic buildings, if it was not limited to notable buildings and NRHP ones, and instead listed out all thousands of them, it would be indiscriminate). In general, from AFD, the better the sourcing and use of non-primary sources, the most likely it will be kept.
- The topic of the list X may have questionable notability but the list inclusion definition is strongly established by WP editors and elements of that list are notable. These often are more navigational aids over anything else. Any of the "List of people from X" articles would fit this mold. If the collection of notable topics is indiscriminate or arbitrary (again, like "List of men named John over 6 feet tall", using only notable Johns) it likely will be deleted. Sources to at least establish that the definition is not some arbitary definition pulled out of thing air is generally a good thing to avoid deletion, in addition to sources for each notable element.
- Finally, there are some lists where the topic is weakly or vaguely notable, and the elements have limited or no notability. Nine times out of ten, such lists are deleted, but I would bet given some time there are rare examples of these. I would certainly not encourage these types of lists, but they (very likely) exist in limited numbers.
- So that said, the key change above is that the goal of a lede of a list article is to (re)introduce the topic X (if it is List of X) and establish why the given list is not indiscriminate. Whether this is by proving it notable, re-establishing the notability of the topic X, or establishing the clear inclusion definition for the list, that depends on exactly the nature of the list. But most importantly, list inclusion is not driven by notability, but by the indiscriminate nature of the list. Notability, however, is a consideration in evaluation of "indiscriminate". --MASEM (t) 03:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and let me re-iterate an addition point. WP:N is not good place for this advice. It should be contained on our policy/guidelines about lists. Or, possibly a new guideline altogher on "list inclusion". But it is not really an issue of notability that requires a change at WP:N. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- And one more point: this is based on both past observation and a recent spot-check of several entries of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists (both active and closed). --MASEM (t) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The whole premise that "Lists (along with many other types of articles) are not subject to the usual notability requirements, as we've established" has been discredited and debunked already and is a barefaced misrepresentation of the discussion so far. For if we go back to the example of the List of Masonic Buildings, we know that there is no evidence that the topic of Masonic building even exists outside of Wikipedia, let alone notable in any way. How can a list of Masonic buildings be notable if there are no sources to define what a Masonic building is? How can anyone argue it is a notable topic at this time if such a list topic has not been defined by even one reliable source, or such a list of has never been published? In the absence of veriable evidence of any sort, there is no rationale for inclusion of this list topic in Wikipedia as a standalone list article at this time.
- Whether a list is discriminate or not is a matter of opinion, not fact, and should not concern us here. Whether a list is discriminate, indiscriminate, ordered or coherent is a matter of subjective opinion, and are not recognisd or accepted as valid inclusion criteria, for they are not defined in any policy or guideline as such. There are many lists of indiscriminate items, such as Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, but they are included in Wikipedia because they have been the subject of commentary, research and analysis, and are verifiably notable.
- The mistaken position that Masem et al are putting forward is that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed does not apply to lists. Somehow they have forgotten that an organised list of stuff is a directory. It is about time they came out of their bubble and accepted that existence on its own is not an accepted inclusion criteria for lists. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the topic of list articles should be subject to notability requirements. But here's an idea. If the topic is such that the public would commonly use it to characterize the contents, then the contents could be used to count towards meeting notability requirements. So if the public would naturally use the attribute/categorization "Masonic Building" as applying to individual Masonic Buildings, the sources etc. on those individual buildings could be used to meet notability requirements. But, the public would not use the attribute/categorization "persons over 5'10" tall with brown hair" to categorize Elvis, so sources on Elvis could not be used to establish notability of the topic "persons over 5'10" tall with brown hair". I know that this sounds abstract, but if you dissect how your you mind works when applying "common sense" to this question, this is it, and I have found such to be a good guide. Just an idea. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's probably yet another good description of when lists are kept, if by common sense they fall out of normal grouping/categorization (but not to be confused with our Wiki-categorization schema) as opposed to highly convoluted definitions.
- The key to remember here is that consensus drives policy, and the fact that lists like List of Masonic buildings and others are kept due to consensus means we cannot create policy to route around that, otherwise that is just gaming the system. There are numerous numerous lists that the topic "List of X" is not notable, but X, like North suggests, is notable or some natural discriminate; thus we make that allowance for it and try to rationalize it in policy and guideline. It is subjective, but every single aspect of WP is; WP is not a place for someone looking to desire strict rules and objectivity. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you have forgotten that the was no consensus to keep or delete the List of Masonic buildings, and that is not the same as the consensus to keep. I think you are clutching at straws, Masem. If established policy like WP:NOT prohibit directories of masonic (or non-masonic) buildings, then that is clearly and explicitly the consensus. The list would never have been nominated for deletion if it was notable, and that is its ownly protection in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that specific list arrived at no consensus, and I do not that one of the comments that the admin hilight was a merge which I still support for that list. But there are plenty of "keep" AFD results from lists in the past (from the deletion sorting) where I base my interpretation of current consensus at and demonstrate that lists are kept where the topic "List of X" is far from notable. There are also probably 3-4 times that number of lists that are deleted, but not for the reason that "List of X" is notable but that the list is indiscriminate. The four types of lists I've described above are my general interpretation to match what's seen in the list deletions That's our consensus, and we need to reflect that where ever these are going to be written. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is the problem: it is your general interpretation of the AFD results. Its an interesting interpetation, and is relevant to this discussion. However, it is not supported by any policy or guideline at this time. If you want to change the notability guideline to exempt lists from WP:N so that your interpretion becomes the recognised consensus, put forward a formal proposal to this effect.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that specific list arrived at no consensus, and I do not that one of the comments that the admin hilight was a merge which I still support for that list. But there are plenty of "keep" AFD results from lists in the past (from the deletion sorting) where I base my interpretation of current consensus at and demonstrate that lists are kept where the topic "List of X" is far from notable. There are also probably 3-4 times that number of lists that are deleted, but not for the reason that "List of X" is notable but that the list is indiscriminate. The four types of lists I've described above are my general interpretation to match what's seen in the list deletions That's our consensus, and we need to reflect that where ever these are going to be written. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you have forgotten that the was no consensus to keep or delete the List of Masonic buildings, and that is not the same as the consensus to keep. I think you are clutching at straws, Masem. If established policy like WP:NOT prohibit directories of masonic (or non-masonic) buildings, then that is clearly and explicitly the consensus. The list would never have been nominated for deletion if it was notable, and that is its ownly protection in the future. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the topic of list articles should be subject to notability requirements. But here's an idea. If the topic is such that the public would commonly use it to characterize the contents, then the contents could be used to count towards meeting notability requirements. So if the public would naturally use the attribute/categorization "Masonic Building" as applying to individual Masonic Buildings, the sources etc. on those individual buildings could be used to meet notability requirements. But, the public would not use the attribute/categorization "persons over 5'10" tall with brown hair" to categorize Elvis, so sources on Elvis could not be used to establish notability of the topic "persons over 5'10" tall with brown hair". I know that this sounds abstract, but if you dissect how your you mind works when applying "common sense" to this question, this is it, and I have found such to be a good guide. Just an idea. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Breaking the dealock
The problem as I see it is that for years we used have Pixelface telling us that notability guideline did not apply to certain topics, such as plot only article topics, but he was never able to impose his views on the community, despite best effors. Despite all the endless dsicussions we had with him, he never put forward a formal proposal that would result in such an exemption. With regard to lists, I see the same pattern emerging. If there is any editor here who believes that list topics should be exempt from WP:N, then they should put forward a proposal now, rather than infer that they exempt by other means. Blueboar has asked for clarity, and now is the time to make such a proposal explicit and open to disucssion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)