User talk:Randomran/test

Basis of RFC

I think there may be a flaw with this RFC and that we may be confusing the proposal to introduce sub-articles with the more general question, can notability be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absense of reliable, third-party sources, not just for sub-articles, but for articles as well? There are two reasons why I ask this, namely:

1. Inherited/presumed/acknowledged notability is already embeded in some subject-specific guidelines for articles, but the rules by which notability is asserted is open to question and needs to be examined to understand whether this concept is sound or can be applied in specific instances;
2. it may be that in the debate that follows, it will be argued that there is no real difference between articles and sub-articles, that is, they are one and the same. If that is the case, then we will need to go back to (1) before deciding whether sub-articles should exist.

Is anyone else thinking along these lines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I think this is an interesting question, but it's something that we should figure out before the RFC. I think we'll want to hash out some of the arguments on both sides, and attach them to specific proposals: particularly the proposal that "Notability is always inherited by sub-articles". We might need to ask the people backing that proposal how they would like to write articles without reliable secondary sources, and then attach that to their proposal.
    I also don't think we should get caught up in the semantics of articles and sub-articles. The definition is right there in the proposal: "if an article can show a relationship to a notable parent article" ... if we want to call that something other than a sub-article, then that's fine by me. But it is what it is. Randomran (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

2B

Changed it back to what I though we'd agreed to on the notability talk page. Perhaps a 4th choice is needed? I think we need a "status quo" option, and the version I reverted to is it I think. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that a completely loose "SNGs are totally independent of the GNG and can offer an alternative standard of inclusion" would represent the status quo. But I think you're right that a 4th choice might be needed. We should let the masses of wikipedians decide, unless it's really obvious that this proposal won't pass. Did you like the wording that was there when someone tried to change 2.B to be more loose? Randomran (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I liked your version (the one I reverted to). I think it did a good job covering the issue. (Just like the summary not the justification) I honesty greatly dislike the 2B you have right now. It feels like you are redefining the word "source" to mean "inclusion criteria". WP:Athlete and WP:Prof both define inclusion criteria, they don't define new sources. So this isn't the current practice, nor should it claim to be. I honestly think you should revert back to your previous version. But if that isn't acceptable, include the previous version as option 4. Then we'll have two things claiming to be the "current way things work" but I guess we disagree on that... Hobit (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Added 2D. Let me know what you think. As noted in the edit summary, I think that

• swapping 2C and 2D might make sense
• Having 2B and (the current) 2D discuss each other might make sense
• That I'd prefer to replace 2B with what I put in there (mostly what Masem had replaced with minor changes). Realizing I'm jumping in at the last minute, I'd hope that others could jump in and provide feedback about going with "2B", "2D" or both.

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this cements the current practice, but I can't say you're unreasonable for believing that. Because I can't flat out disprove you're wrong, I think it's fair to add this as a proposal and see what the wider community thinks. I tried to simplify it though, so that it's not unnecessarily complicated. In a lot of ways, this is the simplest proposal: specific notability guidelines are independent of the general notability guideline. If you feel like I've over-simplified, feel free to add in details that would clarify it. But I'd still prefer to err on the side of simplicity. Also, I wouldn't object to re-arranging the proposals. I might suggest putting your proposal first or second, since it represents the most relaxed interpretation, and would help set the parameters of the debate. Randomran (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed and thanks! I posted a pointer to here from WP:N talk. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Latest IP change was me. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I removed the example because I didn't think it really added anything. What do you think? I think the wording is looking a lot better so far. Randomran (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you have a new proposal to make?

I don't think we should say "If you believe you have a new proposal to make, create a new section above this one along with "Support", "Oppose" and "Neutral" sections." We've already removed a few good ones in favor of conciseness and a clear result. I think leave it at "Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals." I'm going to remove them, feel free to revert and we can talk about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call on removing this part. Even this early on, a lot of people come along and say "why don't we just do X"? But we've heard X dozens of times. The proposals still up here are the result of a lot of pushing back and forth, and represent decent shots at compromise. Even then, it's hard to say which of these will gain consensus. But I definitely think we should try to keep people focused on these compromises, if only to prevent the debate from moving towards the extremes, or retreading old ground. Randomran (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. If we deem the GNC absolute, then other options aren't needed. If we don't deem it absolute, then there are many other options that will need discussion over a long period. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for section 2

Note: this is a revised version of the proposal, made on 15 August 2008; the original proposal can be viewed here.

Propose, based on my concerns (and my perception of others' comments) at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Issue 2 of RfC. There is certainly room for wording adjustment and improvement. Comments? Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Wording revised. 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal simplified.[1] 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• I personally don't agree with this as current practice. From WP:BIO: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." WP:N doesn't have to be met as I read it. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• BIO isn't a great example for your point, since WP:BLP all but requires that the GNG is met (since the need for reliable third-party sources is fairly non-negotiable for BLPs). Vassyana (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really see the value to adding this proposal. You're proposing that the SNGs offer a way to establish that sources exist for notability, but not notability itself. That's a distinction without a difference. If you've established that the sources exist, you've established that it's notable. This is pretty much proposal 2.D in disguise: the SNG offers a second way to prove notability. Randomran (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• That could hardly be further from the truth. Statements like "subguidelines for notability offer alternative criteria for articles that might not otherwise meet the general notability guideline" in 2D are the polar opposite of this proposal. Vassyana (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see it. In theory, your proposal is different in wording from 2D. But in practice they're the same: you have the article meet some kind of criteria that isn't in the GNG, but allows you to presume it's notable. What's the difference presuming that the article is notable in 2D, and presuming that the sources exist as you propose? Randomran (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• (Please note that I rephrased this proposal somewhat in response to your comments and some due consideration.[2]) 2D explicitly grants exemptions to the GNG. There is no presumption in 2D, just a straight defining of notability. (Gold record = Notable. Full stop.) As written, it's a complete end-around the need for sources, and therefore quite a distinct animal from this proposal.
• There are three main distinctions: First, 2D defines notability without room for rebuttal, while this proposal presumes notability and can be rebutted by a failure to find sources with good research. Second, 2D treats the SNGs as exemptions to the GNG, while this proposal treats them as complementary criteria. Third, this proposal treats the SNG and GNG as working towards the same purpose and providing an explanation of this underlying principle, which I feel 2D does not. Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• As a further thought, I think that this proposal offers a compromise between the inclusionist and exclusionist positions that the other proposals lack. The other proposals set the SNGs are exemptions to the sources requirement or place them as further restrictions on top of the need for sources. This one explicitly rejects both interpretations of the SNG/GNG relationship, finding a middle ground by way of a coherent interpretation based on a unified principle. Vassyana (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On a separate but related note, I fail to see the distinction between 2B and 2D, as they essentially say the same thing. 2B and 2D seem only to differ in emphasis, but not at all in substance. They both are phrased in such a way as to provide an exemption to the GNG/need for sources. They both state that the SNG criteria are sufficient to define notability without presumption or room for rebuttal. They both claim the SNG criteria are "objectively verifiable standards" in the sense of Wikipedia:Verifiability. They only differ in that one places a heavier emphasis on the SNG criteria being defined as sources. Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2B reigns it in. Whereas 2D can pretty much redefine and override the GNG, 2B tries to confine it to only one real variable: sources. I'm not sure your proposal really adds anything we don't already have. Okay, instead of presuming the subject is notable, you presume that the subject has enough sources that it's notable. This is either a distinction without a difference, or a guideline that puts someone in the awkward position of proving a negative: prove that the sources *don't* exist and you've proven it's non-notable. That said, if we're going to allow people to override the 2 source requirement, I prefer your wording to the current 2D. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I still have trouble distinguishing between 2B and 2D; 2B just seems to define the "objective criteria" (such as a gold record) as sources, and aside from that seems to advocate exactly the same thing as 2D. Vassyana's proposal is quite different, however, and I could support it as an addition (in its newly rewritten form), with either 2B or 2D (but not both) retained.--Father Goose (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

... Actually, I think I'm beginning to see the light. This is kind of like 2B in that it tries to find a middle ground between the GNG and a total rewrite of guidelines, but it's a different middle ground. 2B lets the SNGs rewrite the source requirements, while this proposal would only let people rewrite the guideline to the extent that it still seems like the sources would be out there. (e.g.: a game with 1 million unique users probably has coverage in 2 reliable sources somewhere.) That said, I object because I see the proposal as fatally flawed: if someone can point to 1 million unique users as a presumption that the sources exist, how can you possibly prove that the sources actually don't exist and rebut that presumption? There's a reason the verifiability standard puts the burden on the person who wants to keep, rather than the person who wants to delete. I'm not about to exclude any proposal I personally disagree with. But if this is more than personal objection and the proposal is actually fatally flawed, we shouldn't include it. We need to get a few more opinions on it, IMO. Maybe I'm overreacting. Randomran (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think our disconnect may be a consequence of poor wording in the proposal. Let me address the question that seems to embody your concerns. I'd imagine the question would be addressed in much the same way it is, and has been, addressed in AfDs. That is, if sources cannot be found through some reasonable measure of research, the presumption moves towards a lack of sources. For example, take a religious topic where the subject (a doctrine, a church, a movement, or so on) was a central part of a recognized award. If no sources, or only bare passing mentions, were found after searching a journals database, Questia, Google Books, a periodicals (magazines and newspapers) database, using Google to search university websites and searching through a local main or university library's book listings (including materials available through an interlibrary loan), we could safely say that there is a clear dearth of sources. It remains possible that sources could still be found, but it is unlikely. It's all about a balance of evidence, or what seems reasonable to presume given a set of facts and circumstances. Does that help explain where I am coming from a bit better? Is there something that can be done to revise the wording to avoid misunderstandings and/or be phrased more appropriately? Vassyana (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely see where you're coming from. But a lot of my experience is in editing video game articles. Let's just say a video game character met some kind of SNG, so we presume the sources are out there. And one day I'm checking out the sources, and I do a google search that reveals a lot of hits on that character. But when I actually start going through the google hits, you realize it's a lot of forum threads, blog posts, and fansites. At that point, I might say "I looked through the sources and trust me, there's no reliable third party sources that cover this character." But how do I offer that as evidence? All I have is my word and my experience. They can still point to the google search and say "come on, there has to be at least 2 reliable sources out there". I'm already accused of bad faith for a lot of AFDs. Imagine the accusations I might experience when I nominate something with a strong belief that the sources don't exist, but everyone else sees a superficial presumption that the sources are out there. That's what I mean by this proposal being fatally flawed. At least, that's my position as a "precisionist". I might be wrong, though, and maybe my experience is colored by uninformed, lazy, and uncooperative editors. That's why I'd like to get a few other opinions. Nearly every other proposal here has seen the light of day and gathered at least nominal support, enough that we might reasonably believe that any one of them would be supported by the wider community. Other proposals didn't, and aren't included here. Let's get a third or fourth opinion -- is what I'm talking about a fatal flaw, or am I being overly harsh? Randomran (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns. I just wanted to make sure my rationale/thought process was clearly explained. You're absolutely correct a few additional opinions are necessary and would be helpful. Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I've left a neutral message on WT:N asking for more opinions.[3])

I agree this should be added. This is how I always read the secondary guidelines in that they define the likelihood via an objective criteria that sources are nearly always found for that type of material. This would also help with the issue that some have with the current bots creating stubs for all towns and villages in the world (as the fact it's in some census data would be the objective criteria). This is what I think was what I was trying to get to before, but this significantly distances the idea of sub-guidelines providing a new interpretation of appropriate coverage and sources, and sub-guidelines providing just alternative considerations that may not be sourced but more than likely can in the future. --MASEM 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How does this proposal differ, functionally, from 2.D? Currently it just seems like a much more convoluted way of saying the same thing (in fact, at first, I thought it was a restatement of 2.A). Would it be possible to alter the wording of 2.D slightly to incorporate whatever new angle is being suggested here?--Father Goose (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In theory, it would only create a rebuttable presumption, whereas 2.D would allow you to assert actual notability. If you could show the sources don't exist, then you'd have rebutted the presumption that they exist, and that it's notable. My beef is exactly your criticism: functionally, it's impossible to carry out the burden of showing sources don't exist. My own personal feelings about the proposal aside, I see it as functionally flawed, or at best redundant with 2.D when you apply it in practice. But I'm thinking out loud, and want to know what others think. Randomran (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, when researching sources to try to establish notability, I check Google News, Google Books, and Google Web, in that order. If, via those, I can't find any reliable source that substantially covers the topic, I assume non-notability. (I do believe in a modicum of "inherited notability", however -- i.e., proposition 1.C.) If someone can produce a source that is only available offline (and I trust the editor to not be fabricating the existence and content of the source), that also establishes notability.

I consider the above steps sufficient due diligence to either establish notability or disprove it. If good sourcing is turned up at a later time, notability is re-established, and the article can be restored and rewritten as necessary.

I'm not sure whether the proposed addition speaks in favor of that approach or against it. Right now it seems vague and contradictory.--Father Goose (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I largely agree. 2D is intended to allow the specific guidelines to provide details of what makes for notability outside of the GNG. So being a MLB player currently meets notability guidelines (even with BLP issues). It isn't because the sourcing is assumed to be out there, it's because we've defined it that way. This proposal is different, and a think it might be different enough to be viable, but I think the 4 options we have now are more likely to get support and 4 is enough. Further, I think the differences are already fairly subtle amoung the 4 and this just makes that problem worse. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are currently two ways for notability: either met specific guidelines,or, meet the GNG. The GNG to me makes very little sense for any use whatsoever except as a last-chance default short of invoking IAR, in cases here we can find no reasonable standard. People use it by "As a practical matter, when researching sources to try to establish notability, I check Google News, Google Books, and Google Web, in that order. If, via those, I can't find any reliable source that substantially covers the topic, I assume non-notability" This totally ignore reality. It assumes t hat all topics are covered well by the internet, and that all topics on the internet are indexed by Google. Neither of them is the least true. G GS and GB are very useful--if they find material it is there, and if they don't, it hows nothing whatever except that the material is not in those sources known to be comprehensively and accurately indexed there. Nor do we accept that the presence of such sources means one can write an article--nor does , for if we did, we wouldn't ned the far-reaching exceptions of NOT, devoted to trying to remove from the GNC at least some of he cases where we have agreed we should not have an article.

The principle for writing articles remains V, but V does not except by interpretation imply the type or sort or number of sources, except they they be adequate to show that we aren't inventing the whole things ourselves. I am not anything like a total inclusionist -- there are a great any things that don't belong in wikipedia, and we need to specifiy on an equal basis what do and what don't. In some fields, the special criteria do this fairly well. In the rest,we need to find similar. DGG (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I speak of Google/Google News/Google Books searches not as an arbiter of notability, but as the minimum due diligence one should perform to find the sources needed to satisfy WP:V (and thus WP:N). There are more thorough means to find sources which not everyone has at their disposal; if a legitimate source is found via those means, any absence of "Google hits" becomes irrelevant.

However, if one does perform that minimum due diligence, and can't turn up any reliable sources, and no one is willing or able to perform a more thorough search, then I for one will support deleting an article until sources actually are found. (Separately, I support the retention of certain types of articles that are verified only via primary sources -- but that is a different issue.)--Father Goose (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Altered proposal. I have simplified the wording of the proposal, cutting out extraneous commentary and removing problematic wording. Instead of a separate proposal, I suggest this as a replacement for 2.D. In short, I think this proposal is more of a compromise between inclusionist and exclusionist positions, lessens redundancy with 2.B and has a better focus on the underlying principles. (Previous comments to those points: [4][5]) Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can get behind it as a revision of proposal 2.D. The main difference is that 2.D would outright assert notability, while this would only provide a presumption of notability. I happen to think this is a distinction without a difference. But I think the way you've worded it makes more sense, because it explains what the objective criteria would have to be: something that leads you to rationally conclude that we can write a WP:VERIFIABLE article, rather than any old objective criteria that appeals to the standards of a few editors. If necessary, tweak the wording. Randomran (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is the presumption...

From the rationale above: Notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia.

• This is incorrect. WP:N is not WP:RS.
• Not every fact verified by reliable sources should have a Wikipedia article.
• Notability is a term of art that Wikipedia editors use to describe the merit of adding an article, or allowing one to continue to exist, after the WP:V test is satisfied. It usually involves some appeal to inclusion criteria which is either explicit or can be derived from the current contents of the Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's a world of difference between V/RS and having sufficient sources to satisfy all of the content principles of Wikipedia. The proposal doesn't state that "sources exist" or that "reliable sources exist" but rather that "sufficient independent sources exist". For example, there has to be a sufficient body of available sources to avoid running awry of what Wikipedia is not. Vassyana (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Sources and verifiability are related Wikipedia concepts. If want a better calibration of (1) sufficient and (2) independent that's a question to raise on the relevant discussion pages: sources and verifiability.

When you look at real disputes over whether a article should be included or excluded, the question of prominence, importance, significance, etc. is often discussed, stipulating that there are (1) sufficient and (2) independent sources to pass WP:V, but that the subject is just not prominent, important, or significant enough to merit an article. It is often not a matter of ink:

• Not every subject verified by sufficient and independent reliable sources should have a Wikipedia article. patsw (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Counter proposal to Vassyana

I think the original and the amended proposals are trying anwer the question I asked at the top of this discussion page: Before we discuss any change to WP:N, is the assumption that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged sound enough to be applied in specific instances in the absence of reliable secondary sources? Although subject notability guidelines such as WP:BIO offer criteria that support a reasonable presumption that enough reliable sources exist to satisfy the general notability guideline, I think these criteria are flawed for the following reasons:

1. There are is no generally accepted criteria or rule set which indicate that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged which can be applied to every subject area. Currently the claim that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged is made only in certain specific instances (e.g. WP:BIO#athletes), and these cliams are based on subjective "expert" opinion;
2. Not only are these claims subjective, but the presumption that reliable secondary sources exist in these specific areas is also based on subjective opinion;

This leads me to the view that a subject is not notable if there is an absence of reliable secondary sources, as any presumption to the contrary is an unsubstantiated opinion that cannot be substantiated by the reader. The example of the stub Ashley Fernee of how WP:BIO#athletes which contains virtual no content sugests to me that the a presumption of notability in the absence fo reliable secondary sources is a falsehood. Although many editors will assert that WP:BIO#athletes makes the subject notable, the reader of this article cannot see any objective verifiable evidence of notability. The contrary viewpoint, that notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged is, in my view at least, based on the opinion that, if there is extensive coverage in

1. primary sources (writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic)
2. tertiary sources (compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources)
3. questionable sources (sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking)
4. routine news coverage (announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism)

then the topic is notable. I think this viewpoint is probably based on the mistaken presumption that large amounts of coverage make up for a lack of reliable secondary sources. Therefore, I would then reword the propoal as follows:

In some ways this version is the opposite of what Vassyana has drafted, but I feel it gets to the core issue of what can or cannot be presumed to be notable more directly. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Err, could you dumb it down a shade? I'm having trouble understanding the proposal. Randomran (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, what about Proposal 2.C? Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think 2.C is a different question again, mainly about the structure of guidelines and whether WP:N is the paramount guideline. I think your question is about whether subject specific guidelines provide exemption from WP:N or whether they assume notability can be presumed. I am asking whether notability can be inherited/presumed/acknowledged or not. I think you have to answer my question first before you can answer the other other two. In response to Randomran, here is my simplified question:

Let me know if this more direct proposal should be put forward.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Err, I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult. But your proposal seems to raise a question without providing a clear answer. The answer is the main thing that matters. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I thought that was the idea of an RFC, that it was down to editors to make that decision, e.g. If notability can be inherited, then inclusion criteria other than the GNG are possible. However, if notability cannot be inherited, then subject specific criteria, and other criteria such as allowing sub-articles cannot be valid. Am I making myself clearer? (Maybe I have lost the plot here).--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that because the RFC is going to be naturally really contentious, and there's going to be literally dozens of different opinions... the idea was to try to simplify the procedure as much as possible. Even just a few months ago among one or two dozen editors, there were numerous opinions on notability. That's where these different proposals for compromise came from. If we were to ask hundreds of editors "what is your compromise on notability", we might literally end up with a hundred different compromises. The idea is to have a more refined discussion among those of us who have paid attention over the past few weeks, so that we can "pre-chew" the conversation and make it easier to digest. I think your proposal is more for a topic of discussion, when really we need to cut to the chase and propose actual compromises between strict/flexible notability. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)