User:Masem/NoteRFC

The purpose of this large-scale Request for Comment is to gauge the general userspace on what direction Wikipedia should take in regards to its inclusion policy.

For more than a year, the Notability guideline has been used to judge the standard by which articles should be kept or removed from Wikipedia. This standard is based on the presumption of notability by the topic having significant coverage in secondary sources (the General notability guideline (GNG)). Augmenting that are notability sub-guidelines, such as Notability (people) and Notability (books) that define other methods by which certain groupings of topics can be shown to be notable. In general, the GNG itself seems to be a well-accepted guideline as it also helps articles to meet other key policies including Verification, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View.

However, there has been recent discussion, primarily in the light of works of fiction and elements within, that these guidelines are either not sufficient to allow appropriate coverage, or are too lax and allow too much coverage of certain topics, creating a divide that has no easy point of compromise. By issuing this RFC, it is expected to determine where the overall consensus for two key issues lies; from there, necessary changes in the Notability guideline and other guidelines and policies will be proposed.

Issue 1: The basis of GNG

At the center of the discussion is the fact that GNG mainly, but not exclusively, requires articles to provide significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Some argue that this requirement is too narrow, and does not allow coverage of esoteric topics which could be useful to Wikipedia readers. Others argue that there are no topics so esoteric that they have not been made note of and there should exist secondary sources for any article subject.

Thus, the first issue is: Are there an alternative inclusion criteria that could replace or be added to GNG?

Issue 2: The GNG and the interaction with other guidelines & policies

A second issue involves how GNG interacts with numerous policies and guidelines. Some argue that other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOT and WP:NOR would have to be changed or altered in order to change the existing inclusion criteria. Others argue that no changes should be made to other policies and guidelines.

Thus, the second issue is: If WP:N were modified to permit articles that were not based on secondary sources, should other Wikipedia policies and guidelines be altered to make them consistent with the change?

Issue 3: The GNG and the interaction with sub-guidelines

One issue involves how subguidelines for notability interact with the GNG. Some argue that these guidelines must be more narrow than the GNG, describing cases for topics that have significant coverage by secondary sources but may also require additional criteria. The opposing argument is that these guidelines provide alternate routes for selected topics to meet inclusion requirements.

Thus, the third issue is: Should notability subguidelines define alternate methods of notability that bypass the GNG's requirement for coverage in secondary sources?

Issue 4: Notability and Spinout Articles

Notability states that a topic is presumed to be notable it it meets the GNG or subguidelines; however, notability itself does not limit content of an article on that topic, and we can include non-notable content as long as we remain true to core policies and what Wikipedia is not. When articles grow WP:SIZE, our guidelines suggest that we spin off sections of the article into new articles. Particularly for topics on fiction, the resulting spinouts often are best made by sectioning off the non-notable content leaving the new article failing our current tests. However, this leaves the notability debate to two opposing views. One is that notability needs to apply to every article regardless if it started as a spinout or not. The other view is that notability is applying to a topic, and thus, spinouts from a topic are implicitly notable for being part of the coverage of the notable topic.

Thus, the fourth issue is: Should notability guidelines apply to all articles, including those that have been spun-out from other articles?