Wikipedia talk:Non-notability/Archive 1

Archive 1

Drawing the Line

Obviously, the most difficult task is deciding where we draw the line in this policy between inclusionism and deletionism. Personally, I fall very fall towards inclusionism, too far for most people, but I'm committed to compromising. And of course, any decision is both somewhat arbitrary and difficult to define/enforce. Honestly, I can't of anything at the moment. Throw out something, anything, just to get something to work with. --Ephilei 06:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait! So the proposal will state that nn has no part to play?! So I could write an article about my family's memorial day picnic? I'm not against this, (well, maybe I am) but everyone else will be. If this succeeds, it will fundamentally define Wikipedia. It needs to have wide support, not only to pass but to nurture an environment where editors (even deletionists!) feel productive.

Is there a policy that an article must have the potential of out growing stubness? That wouldn't prohibit my picnic article, but it would prevent some that should be merged and redirected. That would be a good start.--Ephilei 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should advocate merging information onto small main pages. For example, merging infromation on some 3rd place winner from some spelling bee onto a page about that spelling bee.

However, you could write an article on your family's memorial day picnic - if its verifiable, and not original research. For example, if the news covered your family's picnic. If its just your site talking about your family - thats OR. If its just some memorial day videos, that not verifiable. Thats the point of this article - its not saying that every item you can think of gets an article - its saying that notability isn't considered - instead OR, NPOV, and Verifiability are considered instead - along with the numerous other policies and guidelines on wikipedia. Fresheneesz 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And will this simply mean all the articles that fall under this guideline become second-class articles? To ease navigation, they can't be included in categories with notable articles, they can't be mixed with the others in disambiguation pages, they must always come up last in searches, they will never be found on the main page, whether Featured or In the news or Did you know. Most importantly, they won't be linked from notable articles. Who is going to read them? Who is going to ensure that they follow Verifiability, NPOV, and Original research, if no one is interested in it or bound to find it? You mentioned before that you think there is a lot of wasted effort gone into deleting articles, but monitoring the hordes of non-notable articles (and there will be millions) creates far more work. Including non-notable or non-important articles will inevitably result in these articles not being verified, not being neutral; no one is going to be watching them to ensure that they don't become that. In order for Wikipedia to be reliable, there absolutely must be a minimum of independent interest in the article. If there isn't, the article is either only edited by vandals, or it is edited by Bob's family, who are not neutral.

Perhaps requirements for notability should be relaxed in certain cases, but there must still be a requirement for notability (or something very much like it). The proper place for changing notability criteria and recommendations is Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 08:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"they can't be included in categories with notable articles, .. can't be mixed .. in disambiguation pages, .. must .. come up last in searches"

Why? I believe searches are based on semantics, not popularity or size. As far as I'm concerned, this article is proposing that verifiable non-notables become first-class articles with the rest. "creates far more work" - Articles that aren't edited don't require work. There are plenty of articles that aren't monitored for quality, verifiability, or anyother such thing. However, they are still good stub information, and might grow into nice articles. For example, the article Cabintaxi is terribly written (used to look worse too), and is based off of a copy edit from one outdated page somewhere. However, it is still interesting and useful information. Should this article be removed? I've seen NN articles removed for having more google hits than cabinentaxi's 162.

Oh yea, i've heard about bob's family not being neutral - we should really revoke their editing rights. But in all seriousness, is it really up to us to assume that these articles "probably won't be neutral" ? My opinion is no, we are not a bunch of crystal balls, and we shouldn't treat ourselves as if we were.

A large part of this policy is to encourage new editors. By allowing people to edit stuff they are interested in - things they see aren't on wikipedia but should be - we get new editors that in the future will help us handle the millions of new articles we will inevitably get. Wikipedia isn't about censorship, and its not about exclusion either. The amount of stuff on this site hasn't been too much for us yet, why draw the line and say "this is how much we can take - kill the rest"?

Lastly, I've discussed it at Wikipedia talk:Notability, and it isn't the "proper place" to begin writing a guideline proposal. Remember, WP:NN is just a very popular essay, not a guideline or policy. If you want me to copy-paste this proposal right onto Wikipedia:Notability you can go right ahead and do that yourself - but i'm pretty sure there'd be some pretty angry locals at your door in the morning. Fresheneesz 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no good reason why someone looking through a category or searching on a traditional, important, encyclopedic subject should be required to wade through dozens articles in which no one but a handful of people in the world are interested. Someone looking at the "Websites" category should not have to browse through millions (and millions of websites would qualify under your criteria) of non-notable websites to come across ones like Netcraft, Moviefone, or Acronym Finder. Second, in order to still have the articles comply with Verifiability, Original research, and NPOV, which is what the essay says, the articles would have to be monitored. Notable articles get watchlisted because a variety of people are interested in the subject, and if an editor happens to come across an obscure article with some falsities, it can be resolved and it is not a great burden; in your recommendation, there would be millions upon millions of articles (millions in just websites alone) that have no editor interest—aside perhaps from the websites creator who is likely to be quite biased. If, on the other hand, you were to now say that NPOV, OR, and V are not so important, any reader could come across an article that asserts all manner of personal theories, extravagantly vain statements, under the guise of an encyclopedia with authoritative information. You underestimate the magnitude of your proposal. There are currently 1.2 million articles on the English Wikipedia. What you propose would result in 10's of millions of articles at a minimum. What is to ensure that these would follow NPOV and OR? The reason I recommend you bring it up on Wikipedia:Notability is because this is a non-starter. We are not a crystal ball, yes (though that applies to predicting future events in articles, not anticipating major consequences of policies), but the fact remains that the first step toward implementing this idea would be to relax the Notability essay and get agreement to do that. A change of this magnitude would require small steps rather than a brash change. Wikipedia:Five pillars does not merely state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it furthermore states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory." All of these things can be neutral and verifiable, but do not qualify under your idea. As I said on the Village pump, the Notability essay is designed to flesh out what the above statement means as a consequence of it. What you are proposing is not opposing an essay, but the whole foundation of Wikipedia heretofore. The first step, likewise, for gaining consensus on this is to convince people that Notability needs to be relaxed. The essay you have posted here is not going to be implemented without the first steps of gaining consensus to relax Notability, and seeing the practical results of that relaxation. We do not require a crystal ball to do that. —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think that it might be best to relax both this proposal, and the essay at the same time - to coincide at a consensus. When you say "millions of websites and millions of other things would qualify", you're misinterpreting what this article is about. This guideline proposal does not urge people to disregard what wikipedia is not (or any other policy), but asks people to use those policies and guidlines in place of "notability". The millions of websites you speak of would violate OR, because I would guess people would simply narrate what they think the site is about - or advertise what their site does, which would be POV.

Perhaps this isn't clear from the page, and I invite you to change the wording of the proposal to reflect that this proposal is not meant to give all non-notables a place - only ones that don't violate policy and other guidelines. Fresheneesz 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would an accurate description of a website be POV? It is not original research, all the information is right there on the website and is verifiable. The source is the website, and it would be silly to require a newspaper article or a book to verify the contents of a website that anyone can look at right on the Internet. Or do you suggest that the source instead be another website? And if what is stated on that other website is reliable, why isn't the text and functions of the first website, which are readily accessible by anyone, also reliable? Even articles about quite notable websites with daily thousands of visitors and newspaper mentions have as their source the clear, verifiable source of going to the website and seeing what it does. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability requires reliable sources, and while it may seem like a website would be a reliable source about itself, that's not always true (inflated claims of importance, history, impact, etc., not to mention the fact that it's obviously biased towards promoting itself). Even given those, WP:RS requires several third-party sources, and if there aren't any of those articles or books about a website it's just not verfiable, and therefore shouldn't be included. Ziggurat 23:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about claims made on a website, I am talking about looking at what the site actually does. If you go to www.superbad.com or www.ytmnd.com (though these happen to be notable sites, which is how I know about them), the sites can be accurately and verifiably described, without reference to looking at any "About this site" section. Even if it were just claims, it would still be accurate to say "This website claims to...". Where does WP:RS say that everything must have several sources? Is it really necessary to have three or more independent sources for us to state "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" or "CNN.com is a news website run by CNN."? —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's perform a thought experiment: I'm a fan of the website [asdf.com] and I write an article about it using the information on the site. If (a) I'm a inexperienced editor, I don't add a category; if (b) I'm a decent editor, I put in a category Websites because I see there is a subcategory Pointless websites (bc that's what it is. Takes care of the category problem. Now, because asdf.com is so nn, there's no decent place to link to it from. Or, say I manage to find 2 pages to link to it from: 1 on a page about humorous websites, 1 on a page about letter combos. 99% of readers don't care about funny websites or letter combos so they are never bothered with it - for good or ill. Takes care of the linking problem. Check the main article about for something new on monitering accuracy/vandalism. --Ephilei 01:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the initial issue of drawing the line - I agree we need a compromise or nothing will pass. I see the point that proposing something on the opposite extreme will "swing the pendulum" of opinion to land in the middle, however, a failed a proposal is just a failed proposal. A few people might change their minds to land in the middle, but there will still be nothing officially approved. To me, having something approved is the ultimate goal, no matter what the approach or compromise. There's little point in relaxing the Notability essay because its just an essay - not a policy/guideline. I think we need a clean a approach, but something that can be approved as is. Before we argue about whether the proposal should pass (and we should argue!) let's create a proposal that we can support! --Ephilei 01:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read this thread word for word at the moment, but I would like to note that I did too much a lot of thinking about this sort of thing in my early Wikipedia days. The results of that are here. Feel free to make use of some of that if you think it's sensible. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But how can we draw this line? With what critera do we judge if someone can use notability? Perhaps if the article has questionable verifiability, is questionably OR, or is questionably POV AND if fixing those problems would lead to an article that doesn't assert importance. I think we should draw a line, but we should be careful that this proposal doesn't contradict itself.

As for the website scenario, www.asdf.com, is it independantly verifiable? is the information you wrote on it OR? Probably. It might even have some POV in it. Its very difficult to write an article about a subject that noone else has written about yet - such as junky websites. Fresheneesz 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but are only primary sources allowed? If I want to add info to the plot of Moby Dick, do I need to use cliff notes or the like instead of simply reading and summarizing? Isn't there a difference between OR and summarizing/reguritating? Nevertheless, I think you're on to something - whether policy or not, that method would do well as a distinct dividing line to compromise. It's still arbitrary, but it's distinct nonetheless! --Ephilei 04:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I certianly can't agree with this as a policy. Otherwise it gives license to just about anyone to put their pet project on wikipedia. Anything written or put on the internet can be verified as existing and would then qualify for an article. Notability guidelines are important for preventing such types of articles. You'll end up with thousands of 2 or 3 sentence stubs about every fly by night company that ever existed and who has a pulse and can find wikipedia.--Crossmr 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I think there are already too many stupid articles on Wikipedia, so I strongly oppose a proposal that would open the door for thousands more. As for the discussion back at the top of this section, the fact that someone said a family picnic could actually be included as an article under this proposal only furthers my argument. Small town newspapers cover virtually everything that everyone in the town does. I was mentioned in my town's paper once or twice. Does that mean I should have an article? Dbinder (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys don't understand what verifiability is. This has been gone over before - a site that exists is *not* verification enough to put it on wikipedia. This simply isn't an issue. If you read the proposal, you would know this.

However, since this is a recurring please *PLEASE* tell me how to clarify the fact that small town newspapers do NOT give people the verifiability needed to put it on wikipedia. Fresheneesz 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The last time I checked, this was a talk page. Apparently you don't know what that means. Since this section is called "Drawing the line", it's appropriate to point out where the line should be drawn. If something is only in one small town's newspaper (my town has about 12,000 people and I certainly don't think most things here are notable enough to put on WP), then it shouldn't be covered. As others have said, every insignificant event that ever occurred would have a stub article. These articles would only be maintained by a few people from that town, few people would care, and they would simply be a waste of space and clutter up search results. Dbinder (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. thanks for not reading my previous comment. Your small town newspaper is *not* a verifiable source. Notability doesn't even become an issue for a topic that is only verified in a small town newspaper. Fresheneesz 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I read your comment. You should try clarifying what you say. Since the rest of your post was argumentative and sarcastic, I assumed that line was as well. Furthermore, your earlier comment "However, you could write an article on your family's memorial day picnic - if its verifiable, and not original research. For example, if the news covered your family's picnic." Indicates that you think small, insignificant events are valid. The only news that would cover it would be a small-town paper. Dbinder (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

<YAWN> Can y'all take this to User_talk: ? He-said-she-said isn't very interesting for the rest of us... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, please. If you're gonna argue about semantics, this isn't the place. User Talk:Fresheneesz. I might add: insignificance is in the eyes of the beholder. Fresheneesz 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I never actually read your reply to this, but the person was talking to both of us. Dbinder (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems redundant.

Why not just improve the existing and established Wikipedia:Notability? Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that page is an already established guideline (by established I mean has a lot of precedent) not a proposal and because it argues the opposite of this proposal. And I'm sure people wouldn't like it if we blanked all that pre-existing info. Basically, for clarity. --Ephilei 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read this knowing the history of the original contributor and see that had it existed it would have boosted his attempts to have certain articles included, and other articles expanded. I find it hard to WP:AGF when I see a newly proposed guideline which closely mirrors another extant and widely accepted practice and several extant guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:NMG but which appears to promote the inclusion of material which has been excluded, written by the author of that material. Look at the history of personal rapid transit, UniModal etc. This looks like a retrospective attempt to legislate against results the author did not like. And yes, I know that this lack of good faith makes me a bad person. For me, notability has always been a simple matter of whether there is sufficient external coverage to verify botht eh content and the neutrality of the article; I perceive a real issue right now with subjects which are stated to be "verifiable" by reference to sites which support them, and newspaper coverage garnered by their proponents, but which lack either the credibility of robust peer-review, or in some cases the credibility to inspire peer review: some things are simply dismissed as crank nonsense and not covered at all. We deleted Aetherometry partly for this reason. The section on "upkeep cost" is redundant per WP:NOT paper anyway, which is widely understood.

Here's a specific example: the exhortation to (in bold) full merge information speaks directly to a situation where a hypothetical concept, UniModal, was written up in a level of detail quite indefensible for a system which lacks a backer, a prototype, or a customer. Fresheneesz argued long and hard about the amount of merge. The word full here looks like a deliberate attempt to retrospectively legislate against my reduction of the amount of content (in my view almost all of it was already in the main article anyway, but that is another matter and not truly relevant, only the existence of the dispute is relevant). It also goes directly against WP:NPOV#Undue weight, because it asks for all information, whether provably significant or not, to be merged. That is simply a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am most definately thinking of my past experiences on wikipedia as a reason to have this guideline. I like thinking of ways things I've done in the past or present could be more easily done in a better way. I think this guideline provides that better way by urging users to focus on concrete policy, rather than notability - which is neither guideline nor policy, and is very very subjective. However, I assure you I don't plan on pushing a million new articles on wikipedia if this proposal goes through. I sincerely think this would be a step in the right direction for wikipedia, and I really think that the current emphasis on not biting newcommers is understated - we need new editors. I really doubt I'll be creating any new controversial non-notable articles anytime soon. So this guideline isn't for me specifically.

You bring up a good point about "full merge". The article does suggest an action that might be against policy in some cases. I'll change the wording to reflect that concern. Fresheneesz 19:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But your entire premise is that you were right and I was wrong I would challenge that interpretation (see also the deletion review, for example, which endorsed my view). What you originally wrote was, in essence, a POV-pusher's charter, and directly at odds with a number of well-established guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:NMG and WP:CSD. The fact that notability is included in the (highly restricted) criteria for speedy deletion, an area where there is strong resistance to any extension, is evidence that there is a widespread agreement that notability is, in the end, a useful term to describe that content which is worth including. I would suggest you spend a bit more time around CAT:CSD and WP:AFD before judging the merit of notability as currently understood. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to say I was right and you were wrong, but I think this guideline would have saved much time in comming to the eventual consensus to keep the page UniModal.

Non-notability seems to be only mentioned on the Criteria for speedy deltion page to assert that non-notability is *not* in fact criteria for speedy deletion, if the article establishes "importance". And the biography tag mentions non-notable people and vanity pages. I do see the problem with loosing the ability to use notability as a qualifier, and I think that it would be good to go into the reasons and explore ways of chaning this proposal so it allows wikipedia to grow without causing problems. Fresheneesz 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

An article that is not important or significant could not possibly assert importance or significance, so strictly construed, it would be deleted under those criteria. —Centrx→talk • 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, but asserting significance is usually not what people are refering to when they say "notability". Thats a good reason why notability is not a useful base on which to argue - other policy suffices, and makes things less complicated as well. Fresheneesz 03:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man?

The essay lists "problems with keeping non-notable pages" and then proceeds to shoot these down as arguments. Indeed, as arguments for deleting non-notable pages in general they are not strong. But isn't this setting up a straw man? The essay will be stronger if it tackles the arguments from Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments for deleting non-notable articles. --Lambiam^Talk 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a straw man. This proposal is meant as something entirely separate from the essay, and it doesn't interpret (or misinterpret) anything from that essay. The thing is, the essay is an essay, and I really think there should be a clear guideline on this subject. Fresheneesz 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

aetherometry

I removed this paragraph pending further discussion:

"As an example, Wikipedia had for a long time an article on a crank theory called aetherometry. It documented the theory and systematically debunked it. It was for some considerable time one of the leading sources of information on the subject. But it was deleted, because the debunking was original research, as the theory had never been published or discussed in any peer-reviewed journal; that left the pro-aetherometry side only, which was therefore non-neutral. It was not possible to cover the subject neutrally without original research, because the theory itself was non-notable and had not been given so much as a passing nod by the scientific press. The only reliable primary sources were those promoting the theory, and there were no reliable secondary sources at all."

I think this precedent sort of goes against what this guideline is advising. I think that the main idea of aetherometry could have been (and might very well have been) merged with Aether theories. Noting that the entire subject was deleted with no redirect (I just took the liberty of RDing it to aether theory) I think goes against the intent of this guideline. Comments? Fresheneesz 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article was deleted for being original research, then it was not deleted for non-notability and this essay would not apply. —Centrx→talk • 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a non-notable crank theory (which is also why it was not merged: it was a minor POV which would have been accorded undue weight). We have plenty of notable crank theories. But do feel free to find a better example. Just zis Guy you know? 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

removed quote of Brion Vibber

Just a question, why was it removed again? Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I've readded it pending explanation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight of separate articles

I've looked over the undue weight part of NPOV, and I've never seen any way to interpret that separate articles can by themselves constitute undue weight. Could someone please quote something that can be interpretted as such? It seems like the following sentence directly contradicts such thinking anyway:

"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."

Fresheneesz 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncontested, I removed this "(although note that sometimes the existence of a separate article in and of itself constitutes undue weight, for example in the case of a minor theory with few adherents)." Fresheneesz 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've made some edits to bring this into line with current policies. The section talks of merging information into main articles, however, it should be wroth noting that if the presentation of that information in the main article would be deemed as undue weight, it should be deleted. That's per WP:NPOV, which I can't see anyone disputing. If a topic is considered to be not of worth in a main article, then guidance on content forking directs that it should not be given its own article. Wikipedia:Content forking:

• "However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called "Criticism of XYZ"; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the "Criticism of XYZ" section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location."

• As can be seen, if the information being merged or inserted into the article is consensually removed, then an article on it is POV forking. We must ensure that guidance on POV forking and given undue weight is adhered to. If information should not exist in a main article since it gives that view undue weight, the content forking guidance states it should not have its own article as this constitutes a POV fork. Hiding Talk 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of that - espcially the POV fork and articles containing undue weight. However, I think that suggesting we delete an article that would put undue weight on a main article is against the spirit of this proposal - its certainly not what I intended when I began it. The "worth" of an article is what this proposal is about - ie that "worth" is inherintly biased by the individual asserting the worth, and thus not a useful way of classifying (or deleting) articles. Fresheneesz 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also note that WP:NPOV does not suggest deleting articles in the way you explain. Fresheneesz 23:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The guidance on content forking is quite clear. Information which doesn't belong in the main article should not have its own article if that constitutes a POV fork. Regards what you intended for this proposal, this is a wiki, we are all gfree to edit and amend. If you wish to change current policies and guidelines, you do that at the specific talk page, not by attempting to write a separate proposal. To be honest, I think I'd reject this proposal at the moment, as it adds nothing new to Wikipedia. The worth of an article is what we debate at WP:AFD. I'm not sure what you feel this proposal addresses. Hiding Talk 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I already said, I agree with you about the POV fork thing. This proposal intends to "ban" (not truely ban since it would be a guideline not policy) the use of notability in discussions of an article's worth. This would be quite a large change, and so I have to assume that what you mean by "adds nothing" is that it doesn't make wikipedia better. I simply disagree. Fresheneesz 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then this proposal should be upfront about the fact that it simply wants to ban notability as a word from wikipedia. That's unworkable, and please assume good faith. Hiding Talk 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps ban isn't the right word. However, I do think the proposal makes its intent very clear, especially in the nutshell - "Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article, or inclusion of an article itself". Fresheneesz 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Importance

There is currently a proposed policy that directly contradicts this proposed guideline (and therefore would overrule it if passed) Clinkophonist 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what contradicts? I looked over it and I can't quite understand the intent of the proposed policy - or how one would use it. Fresheneesz 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming they do contradict, I don't think Wikipedia is schizophrenic enough to give both consensus. Policy doesn't overrule guidelines; it accords with guidelines. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

against current guidelines?

I removed this header from the page:

This is against current guidelines

Of course it is—it's a proposal to repeal certain guidelines that have gained currency.

I'm pretty sure this proposal doesn't go against guidelines. This proposal is meant to make people use current guidelines and policy rather than the non-policy idea of "notability". Can anyone shed some light on this addition? Fresheneesz 03:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I will add in this header again, and explain that this guidelines does not, and does not intend to, violate or contradict any official policy or guidelines. Fresheneesz 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See CSD A7 and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 6. Both explicitly affirm that there must be a minimum threshold of notability for an article to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, this proposal would suggest that AFDs shouldn't delete things for non-notability, which currently they do routinely. The proposal as-is is largely against consensus (with 70–80% being in favor of CSD A7, as I recall), and consensus is basically equivalent to policy (or at least guideline) on Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this brings up a good point. However, both points specifically address people - ie vanity pages. I think it is quite reasonable to require that articles "assert importance" - meaning that the article explains why someone or something is important. However, I think it might be prudent to explicitely yeild to vanity guidelines in this proposal. My personal preference is that this proposal not contradict any existing official policy or guideline.

What do you think is the best way to do this? Fresheneesz 06:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So you don't think articles need be important, but think they should still be required to assert importance? Doesn't that work out to saying that articles on unimportant stuff are fine provided they lie about their importance? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. However if they lie, then its obviously not verifiable, unless everyone's (the media is) lying - in which case we're just screwed. I think "asserting importance" is a really slippery-slope sort of concept, as it doesn't neccessarily mean anything different than being important. The problem is that "asserting importance" is not part of policy right now... unless its part of AfD or something. Fresheneesz 08:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a CSD. If an article doesn't assert the importance of its subject, any admin can delete it at any time. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why don't we reinforce the need for an article to "assert importance", and explain the difference between notability and importance. I think this article says a tiny bit on asserting importance already. Fresheneesz 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any difference between notability and importance. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me add my two cents here: WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:" and the list starts. I have a real hard time understanding how the proposal is coherent with this policy. Sure, there is this bit about importance but, as noted above, how should one distinguish "important" from "notable". Most of the notability guidelines are essentially trying to build consensus objective criteria for importance of the subject with the goal, precisely, of avoiding pointless debates where a handful of editors argue "it's important because it's important to me." I would also add that two key arguments are missing in favor of not including any verifiable information.

1. protection against spam. Wikipedia is being targeted over and over by small companies writing articles for their products. They're not necessarily written as advertisements but since Wikipedia is such a fantastic tool for Google bombing even a neutral article on whatever shampoo is valuable to that shampoo's manufacturer.
2. Protecting the credibility of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The first argument is fine - the second one is rather vague. How does deleting small verifiable articles protect wikipedia's credibility? Note also that spam won't be independantly verifiable, and probably will be OR. In fact, spam is OR.

Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not in any way refer to the notability of an article. Fresheneesz 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the spamming problem on Wikipedia. It's not only about external links, it's also about, for instance, small corporations using Wikipedia as a boost to their notoriety and web-presence. Even a perfectly NPOV verifiable description of a three-employee hot-dog stand is an abuse of Wikipedia's reputation. Also, I think you are simply not reading the parts of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that go against your views. For instance, the Wiki is not a memorial section says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." I guess you'll argue that the word "notable" is not used but that would not convince many people... Pascal.Tesson 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do realize that. I disagree tho - I think that a perfectly NPOV verifiable article *isn't* abuse. A company can make a website about their product or whatever, but that information must be kept to standard, and of couse we all know its V OR NPOV etc.

Re WP:NOT: Well, my little bit of bias is that I'm reading "establishing importance" (ie claim to fame) different than "notability". Notability can have lots of different meanings, but in my mind "establishing importance" is a narrow specific thing, which refers to the reason the article is useful or interesting. Still subjective, but on a much narrower and smaller scale. I'm not going to argue semantics, of course notability can describe that tenant :-D . But I think notability is not a good describer of anything, much less someone's "claim to fame".

For example, say there is a person in some small county in new jersey who won a world record for something obscure. Notable? Maybe, maybe not - depends on your definition. But the article can still "establish importance" (in my mind) by stating the world record thing. Fresheneesz 08:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rearranging this page

I think it would be good to discuss how we could rearrange this page, in order to better emphasize the main points of the guidline. For example, people might read part of it and might think that it violates this or that policy, because the arguments to dispell that thought are buried in the page. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we could reorganize the page? Fresheneesz 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Arguments against using notability" to "Nn articles are beneficial" as the contents are very similar, these are the main points and need to be put plainly, and arguements against notability could be merged with "Arguements for using notability" --Ephilei 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

importance problem

The concept of "importance" needs to be discussed. I don't see any problem with an article stating why its subject is "important" - but to me, notability is much more than that. Notability implies some sort of widespread popularity, which I don't think should be a requirement of an article. However, the problem with importance is that it can be a synonym for notability - which isn't good. We need to find a way to describe these concepts without muddling ourselves up with insufficient words. Fresheneesz 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I tend to use importance as a synonym for notability for no other reason than there's too much jargon to keep straight. --05:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Nn articles are beneficial"

This section contains several excellent examples of begging the question :-) I'm still waiting for a good example of a subject which is not "notable" by normal editors' standards but which has achieved sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow its coverage in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. The comments about covering tiny minority views also still look like a barrow-pusher's charter. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point proves why notability is useless - you claim that in every case Verifiability and NPOV is sufficeient. This proposal agrees. Fresheneesz 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that that section is misleading and disingenuous for instance by confusing nn articles with nn opinions and censorship or by insinuating that there is some sort of financial advantage for Wikipedia to allow nn articles. The argument that deleting nn articles is a waste of everybody's time of course completely disregards the considerable problems associated with time wasted on nn articles by WikiGnomes taking time to stop vandalism, remove spam, categorize and keep to a reasonnable standard all these articles. Point 1 is pure speculation and I would say the same if someone defended without substantiating the claim that editors who see categories clogged with useless junk are likely to leave WP. It also assumes that everyone agrees with the proposition "more editors = higher quality WP" since it is pointed out that these extra editors would not contribute significantly to making the existing entries better. Point 6 argues that if an article is written then more people will read it. I suppose that's trivially true but how is that a benefit? How is point 7 representing a "benefit of nn articles"? Pascal.Tesson 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite ... you're not the only person who didn't miss the exhortation to attract new "editors and donors" (emphasis mine). That aside, frankly, this whole proposal airily assumes that a vast horde of new editors means a higher quality encyclopedia, but if everything's included as long as it's verifiable? Categories become useless overnight, as they'd be overwhelmed by every high school football player (who can link to a hometown newspaper), every amateur actor and play (ditto), every writer of anything at all, so long as there's a link, every "band" that has a Myspace page, every corner grocery store with a website. Right now, the whole notability side has a fundamental premise -- that allowing indiscriminate cruft weakens Wikipedia's quality and credibility. I'm not sure why a quality encyclopedia is a bad thing, but I am sure that Wikipedia's market share will evaporate overnight to some new similar effort that is seen to maintain some standards. RGTraynor 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This straw-man argument comes up every time someone mentions doing away with notability. WP:V and WP:RS already prevent these 'articles'. "every high school football player (who can link to a hometown newspaper)" in which they have been mentioned non-trivially by multiple sources? That narrows the field considerably. "every writer of anything at all, so long as there's a link" to a reliable source, yep. Again, not nearly as large as you seem to think, as most websites don't qualify as a reliable source. For example, "every "band" that has a Myspace page" Myspace ain't reliable, and so ain't usable. If verifiability and the requirement for multiple non-trivial third-party reliable sources are maintained, notability is simply useless. Ziggurat 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy oh boy am I happy to read such common sense. Could not have said it better. I would also add that there is little evidence that this new horde of editors would do much more than create a new entry about their grade-school math teacher and leave. Pascal.Tesson 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A statement on MySpace from the band would be assumed, like similar generic self-identifying statements, to be accurate. If the band states on their MySpace page that they are a "Christian rock" band, there is no reason to think that is incorrect. You don't need to cite the New York Times to verify that anyone can edit most all Wikipedia pages. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but the crucial point here is that current policy requires multiple independent sources to justify the inclusion of an article, regardless of the use of notability. If a band only has a MySpace page, they can't be included. Think of it as 'objective notability' if you like, or at least 'out-sourced notability'. Verifiability requires proof that the world has taken notice somehow; notability only that Wikipedians have taken notice. Ziggurat 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. We aren't AfDing significant articles, and any time someone tries the condemnation is immediate. What this proposal would enshrine is the insignificant and trivial, and I wonder why someone driven away from editing on Wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia with standards constitutes a loss to us. RGTraynor 04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because while most will not contribute to articles you view as significant, some will. And what you view as unimportant, some will undoubtedly view as important: to some, you are AFDing articles every bit as important as many of those whose AFDs are shot down or never attempted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A MySpace that calls itself the official website of a Christian rock band is evidence that a MySpace exists that calls itself the official website of a Christian rock band. It isn't evidence that the Christian rock band actually exists. MySpace is not a reliable secondary source; it's only valid as a source indicating that someone on MySpace said something specific. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Categories become useless overnight"? What about using subcategories, such as Category:Notable college football players? This is addressed in the article. And why does any fully-referenced and verifiable article reduce Wikipedia's credibility? Why does one part of the encyclopedia covering trivial material reduce the quality of the other parts of the encyclopedia that cover important things? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"time wasted on nn articles by WikiGnomes taking time to stop vandalism, remove spam, categorize and keep to a reasonnable standard all these articles": See argument one under Arguments in favor of using notability.

"Point 1 is pure speculation": No, it's not. At least, the argument that people leave Wikipedia when their articles are deleted isn't, it's quite easily verifiable. That getting people involved in Wikipedia is an actively bad thing (rather than being at least slightly good, or neutral at worst) I find hard to accept, although in principle it's arguable.

"categories clogged with useless junk": No articles will be clogged with useless junk. See argument two under Arguments in favor of using notability. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't really think the section Nn articles are beneficial is very convincing at all (sorry, Fresheeneesz). It makes too many kind of dubious points without supporting them. I phrased Arguments in favor of using notability as point-counterargument specifically because I feel there are inherent limitations to a quickie kind of list, and also note that in my original version I didn't include any of those list's points because they are, as JzG points out, begging the question: you're appealing to motives that your notability-friendly readers won't have, which is pointless. Supporters of notability don't care that "WP can do the same for nn topics as it does for notable topics", or that "Users can have further depth" in comic-book articles, or that "if a[ non-notable] article is written . . . people are bound to read it". Play to your audience, don't preach to the choir.

Neither would they agree that "wikipedia is a collection of information that is verifiable and NPOV", and I'm sorry, but I have to say that I find the discourse under "Non-notable articles will increase WP's size, making it harder to monitor for quality" both unnecessary (since the issue is already covered in the very first point of that section) and sort of rambling. I would suggest that those two subsections of "Arguments in favor of notability" be removed, the entire section "Nn articles are beneficial" be removed, and the subsection "Non-notable topics do not belong" (addressing, as it did, a specific criticism made on WP:NN) be restored. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm ecstatic there is much constructive criticism about this section. But instead of spending so much time talking about it, please go ahead and just edit it however you see fit (very little changes have been made so far). My main purpose when writing it was to shift the emphasis from arguing against notability to the more positive arguing for nn. I wanted more to get the ball rolling than to write a polished and consensual apologetic. So it's broken - fix it! However, if you remove a section entirely, may I suggest its better to cross it out just so people know what used to be there without searching the history. When the proposal is somewhat close to voting, then of course those sections should be removed entirely. --Ephilei 05:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the "Nn articles are beneficial" section, so don't be sorry to me : D . But I did look over it and either things were fine with me, or I weren't unsure enough about them to delete them. Definately fix it up - by all means. Fresheneesz 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Simetrical - thanks for finaling editing "benefits of nn"! But I think you went a little too far. Is it really the consensus opinion that the section is compeltely worthless? I re-inserted the section, but removed two sections that were highly criticized (with good reason) namely begging the question. --Ephilei 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I don't know what consensus was, I was just being bold. Some of the section continues to beg the question: "The less frequent reading of nn articles is better than no reading at all." "Someone finds it worth reading." Point 6 is also not a good argument because of the fact that such pages can be easily locked against recreation. On review of the remainder, you're correct that it all makes reasonable points and should be included; I would either change the format of that section or the format of the next, though, and bring the names in sync. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! The initial bullet points where just laziness - certainly not good form. I didn't know a page could be locked from being recreated, so I'll make that correction. --Ephilei 07:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

bad example

Comment - actually a poor example. Autosexuality is entirely notable; the critiscism of the article, amongst other things, is that it is unsourced OR. TerriersFan 17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability is a good criteria

I'm against any policy that attempts to say notability is not a valid factor to consider. Sure, it is subjective, but so is NPOV and "good writing style". We make judgement calls all the time. Notability is just another judgement call we have to make. I call for rejection of this proposal. Johntex\^talk 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well . . . perhaps you could make more specific objections to the actual content of the proposal? It doesn't consist solely of "notability is subjective". Actually, I'm not sure it makes that argument at all. What are your arguments in favor of notability? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My mention of subjectivity was because of other comments here on this page.

My objection is very simple. The goal of this proposal (as I understand it) is to say that "Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article..." I object to that basic premise. The proposal can't be fixed without altering the basic premise of the proposal. There are no improvements I can offer to this proposal because it is going in entirely the wrong direction.

Consideration of notability is a good thing because it allows us to weed out information that is citable, yet unimportant. The reason we want to weed out these things is becuase they cause a dilution of the overall encyclopeida and lead to reader and editor fatigue. As it stands, we routinely consider notability in deciding whether to keep articles. Even though I don't always agree with the decision we reach, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines flight 1740, it is an important part of the process. We should not be considering a proposal that would eliminate notability as a factor in our decisions. Johntex\^talk 15:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that notability has more or less widespread usage. However, I disagree that this proposal would cause "editor and reader fatigue" - especially "reader fatigue" because absolutely no readers attempt to read the entire wikipedia. Neither do editors edit the entire wikipedia - people do what they can when they want to, on their own time. Fatigue simply won't happen excepteing the hyper-OCD editors.

As for subjectiveness, I would argue that NPOV is much much less subjective than notabilty. Like whether a maroon car is red or brown, most people can agree on that, but if an article is "important enough" is going to be a continued source of controversy and wasted debate until we learn to disregard such subjectivity in our AfDs. And "good writing style" is never used as sole grounds for deletion, and shouldn't be used as grounds for deltion at all - ie so fix it. Fresheneesz 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for suggested improvements, I was asking for criticisms, i.e., why you oppose the proposal. The point of this page is to lead to discussion, thereby hopefully influencing community opinion. As far as I can see, your only objection is "becuase they cause a dilution of the overall encyclopeida and lead to reader and editor fatigue"? Well, for one, I don't see how an encyclopedia can be diluted. And second, I don't see how having pages that few people so much as look at would cause anyone fatigue. Could you elaborate? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I prefer to offer solutions rather than objections. Since I fundamentally object to the proposal, the only solution I see is to not make this policy. But since you asked, here are five objections:

1. Reader fatigue: The more non-notable articles we have, the more of them will be encountered by the average reader. They will get there by following links in articles, by browsing categories, by clicking the "random article" button.
2. Editor fatique: Right now, we have a certain balance between people who tend to write new articles, and those that tend to copyedit those articles, wikify them, categorize them, etc. Allowing articles in on any given topic, no matter how minor, will tend to shift the balance so that there is not enough copyeditors to keep up. Average article quality will suffer.
3. Vandal-fighting fatigue: every single article here carries a risk that someone will vandalize it. The more articles there are in comparison to the number of vandal-watchers, the more likely this vandalism will go undetected and lower the overall quality of the project.
4. Perception: If we allow articles regardless of notability, it opens up a flood gate of articles on extremely minor topics. Anyone who appeared in a single newspaper story will now be verfiable and hence would be fair game for an article. This would hurt the public perception of the project as a serious encyclopedia.
5. System fatique: Although Wikipedia is not paper, it does have finite resources. Openning the floodgates to a morass of non-notable articles will stress the system undesirably. Johntex\^talk 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, tho a couple of those are not new arguments, and are actually addressed in the proposal. I suppose you didn't read my argument against number 1 and 2 of your fatigue arguments - it isn't people's job to read wikipedia, therefore no reader will read to exhaustion - people read basically for fun or for information, links included. Editors are similar, as i already stated. On average quality - Why not have 100 articles only, no more - and keep them tip top shape. That way average quality will be near-perfect. Is this desirable?

No. Rather, the goal is to have the greatest number of high-quality articles - quantity and quality combined, neither in excess. With 100 articles in tip top shape, don't you think most editors would simply leave wikipedia because their expertise isn't accepted?

Number 3, vandal-fighting fatigue is not imperative on rarely read articles, and someone already brought up the argument that more articles will NOT increase views of vandalism, unless of course it increases readership (a good thing).

Number 4, perception - Not just anyone mentioned in some random hick newspaper is verifiable. Verifiability has to do with whether its verifiable by wikipedians - NOT verifiable in theory. Maybe I'll dig up a second quote from Jimbo that I can emphasize this point with.

Number 5, system fatigue - Wikipedia does *not* have finite resources. It has the infinity of time to complete and grow. What possible stress could be put on wikipedia that would cause it to collapse - my theory is that nothing can do such a thing except physical attack (like destroying the servers and backups). Fresheneesz 06:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1 - Reader fatique - as I use it here, has more to do with the reader hitting on several bad articles and having their experience diminished. It is not about them trying to read every article.

2 - Editor fatique - it is a sort of job to work on Wikipedia, in the sense that acting as an unpaid tour guide at a musuem is a job. You don't have to be paid in cash for it to be a job. There is a level of responsibility and a level of committment to doing the job well.

3 - Vandal-fighting-fatique - rarely read articles are the biggest problem with respect to undetected vandalism. Readership of the article is the surest way to detect vandalism. Allowins scores of articles with virtually zero readership is a recipe for undetected vandalism.

4 - Anyone who has ever been mentioned in a newspaper absolutely is verfiable, at least with respect to the incident mentioned in the newspaper. One could easily write a stub around that one incident.

5 - system fatique - you're kidding right? How many times have you gotten errors trying to make changes to a page? How many appeals for more funds have we seen? It is not important how many theoretical resources we may some day have. What is relevant is our resources at any one point in time, and at all points in time, compared to the load on our resources.

And please don't bother digging up a quote from Jimbo. He has said, "...I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think". Let's reason this out on our own. Johntex\^talk 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts because both John and Fresh have made some great points

1.)Reader Fatigue-IMO, this is the weakest contention point. Readers search for what they want to read and click on links of things from articles that interest them. "Random Article" fans already know it's a crap shoot with what they might get and maybe that's part of the appeal. Wikipedia's search engine is fairly apt (and can always be improved) so I don't think there is much worry to readers having to swim through nonsense to get at what they want to read.

2.)Editor Fatigue-While I don't think "fatigue" is the best way of describing this point, I think that John's contention of the balance between article writers & article editors being skewed is very valid. Rather then promoting fatigue (because as Fresh said people only work on what they want to and to the extent they want to), I think the off-balance will contribute to an overall diminishment in article quality. While I don't think we need to the go to the extreme that the "100 articles" line of thought ask for, what needs to be determined in this proposition is how much of a diminishment in article quality can Wikipedia stomach before it starts to diminish the overall usefulness of the project.

3.) Vandals- Vandalism is a form of attention getting. The articles that are most targeted are those that get the most views because it is the reaction that gets the vandal's off. Few vandals will see getting their kicks on articles that no one is reading.

4.) Perception-This is a big sticking point for me personally. I share with the visions of Wikipedians who want Wikipedia to be a resource for people seeking knowledge--for school work, for media articles, etc. The more that it is widely perceived that Wikipedia is a good source for people to turn to, the better. The key to supporting this proposal for me, is whether overall this change would improve Wikipedia's perception and usage in the world.

5.) System- High Traffic is more the cause of those error messages that John is referencing then in the number of pages that Wiki has. Of course one can make the assumption that more articles=more editors=more readers (and potentially more donations), which overall would essentially be a good thing. Agne27 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a corollary to the vandalism point, uncorrected vandalism results in the page not meeting Wikipedia policies of verifiability, NPOV, OR. This is in combination with the Editor Fatigue point: many of the new pages that would result from this proposal would end up not meeting those Wikipedia content policies and the result would be that someone spends time cleaning it up, an exorbitant task considering the number, or such articles get deleted in the same way that non-notable articles are deleted now, in which case the proposal would change nothing. It is not just attention-getting vandalism, it is adding unverifiable statements. —Centrx→talk • 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On "diminishment in article quality" - Such a proposal will *not* diminish article quality. Average article quality based on some arbitrary measure of quality divided by number of articles (Q/N) will go down. However, Q/T (quality divided by topics) will go up, or remain the same. A non-existant article is the topic with the worst quality of them all. Fresheneesz 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A non-existant article is the topic with the worst quality of them all.-That is a GREAT line. Agne27 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

3. At some point in the probably not-too-distant future, Rob Church's mw:Patroller extension will permit us to systematically verify that no edit to the encyclopedia is vandalism. Therefore, vandalism to unimportant pages will be caught quickly just as vandalism to important pages.
4. I'm very skeptical that anyone will think less of our "important" articles just from the fact that they're in the same encyclopedia as "unimportant" ones.
5. Please see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. None of us is in any position to judge whether notability policies can have nontrivial impact on server performance. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Biting the Newbies

It's a point that I don't think is given enough attention. A lot of new contributors start out with nn articles and sometimes the AfD debates can get a little testy, leaving newbies with a feeling of being bitten. Overall the rest of Wikipedia has to compensate in trying to maintain a welcoming community. Letting newbies cut their teeth with nn, encouraging clean up and stub prodding with proper tags, can potentially encourage their growth into better editors--versus scaring them in the get-go. Agne27 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a point I bring up in my notability essay. I think this point, with the subjectivity and redundancy arguments, are the three most important in any discussion about the utility of notability. Ziggurat 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent essay. Overall, with this project page and your essay, my fears about maintaining the quality of Wikipedia are not completely alleviated but I certainly see the value in lessening the weight of notability.Agne27 03:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, I think the best way to remove notability would be to make it completely redundant. This is possible just by clarifying the existing policies, especially WP:V and WP:RS, and if it's done properly the quality of Wikipedia overall will be significantly enhanced (sources are essential!) rather than diminished. I've had a few thoughts on this subject wandering around for a couple of years now (damn, I feel Wiki-old), and some day I may try to clarify and strengthen WP:V and WP:RS along those lines. I prefer to prove that the term is unnecessary rather than argue it :) Ziggurat 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The usual counterargument, which I do not endorse, is "So what? They're only going to contribute to cruft anyway." Some hard evidence might be useful, if someone were willing to dig it up, but it might be hard to come by (since how are you going to know what anyone would have done in the future?). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A reply to that counterargument would point out that sentiment goes against Good Faith. Wikipedia is based on the assumption that every contributor brings with them value and worth in their contribution. Chasing away newbies because you don't think their contribution will be "up to snuff" is counterproductive to the Wikipedia spirit. It's much more beneficial to engage them and work with them in crafting quality articles rather then rushing to delete themAgne27 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an RfA candidate or two (successful ones) who started out with cruft and copyvios. As for "If you let everyone write on something as long as they can provide good sources, cruft will take over Wikipedia and it will be useless", I see it as the same argument as that against Wikipedia in general: "If you let everyone edit, they'll just vandalise Wikipedia and it'll be useless." I agree with them both to the same degree (that is, not at all :) Ziggurat 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove the word 'notable' in all forms from wikipedia?

That's what this proposal looks like. It appears to be an attempt at removing all references of 'notability' or related terms from wikipedia. The article title is almost improper. This reads more like an essay on not using the term 'notability'. The 'arguements for' the term contain lengthy counter-arguements to Wikipedia:Notability, and hardly sounds like good policy or guideline. Sadly for this page, Wikipedia:Notability is written better than this. It would need a nice cleanup to touch upon being a policy or guideline. Kevin_b_er 10:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal *is* attempting to reduce the use of notability in article criteria (I don't know what you mean by "remove all references"). What did you think it would be? And thanks for the less than constructive criticism of our work. Would you care to offer any suggested improvements. Fresheneesz 19:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to note that this page is not the evil twin of WP:NN. It is an attempt at at pushing a guidline, rather than being an essay that simply discusses both sides of the argument - like WP:NN is. Fresheneesz 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet its written as an essay designed to counter Wikipedia:Notability. It takes points of that essay and counters them one by one Its like an essay itself, despite the fact that you want it to become a guideline or policy. Kevin_b_er 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What about that makes it less able to be a guideline? The essay on notability brings up points as to why notability is good for use as criteria - obviously this page tries to refute those claims in order to argue that it not be used as criteria. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Fresheneesz 08:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Form

It seems a lot of people are criticizing the form (style, structure, stratedgy) of this proposal. Eg, "reads more like an essay than a proposal." I agree with all those criticisms but I'm clueless to solves them. Does anyone know a good example of an accepted proposal whose form we could emulate? Excuse my ignorance, but what the heck is a proposal supposed to look like anyway? --Ephilei 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would guess one thing this page does too much of is list points as to why there needs to be a guideline about this, rather than tell the guideline itself. But this proposal isn't complicated, it just suggests not using notabilty, and thn theres that nice section on how to fix articles. So I'm not sure how to cure this, other than shotening the arguments sections, or displaying more prominantly the actual guildeline part of the page. Fresheneesz 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking, maybe we could split off the argument portions to an actual essay page - therby making this page a short concise guideline, which of course would point to the essay as backup. I was thinking also that it would be a good idea to put the page at Essay:Non-notability, making it pretty clear that its an essay. Fresheneesz 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fresh, I think that is a great idea. You could also try and steer "debate" about the topic towards the Essay's discussion page and keep this one as focus on the framework of the guideline as possible.Agne27 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'm looking for a little more support before I split up the page. Fresheneesz 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea. You have my support. --Ephilei 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the preliminary move of all the essay-like stuff. It looks pretty broken to me, does anyone see a way of making it look better? Fresheneesz 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

An admin has deleted, and then moved the essay portion a couple times now. Apparently he doesn't like the idea that its in the "essay" namespace. I find it aggrivating that he isn't discussing a delete or move which is obviously contested. I think the Essay:Non-notability was a good place to put it, but now its at User:Fresheneesz/Non-notability. Its not *my* essay! Why is it there? Fresheneesz 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop moaning - you are totally at liberty to move it to anywhere in the Wikipedia: namespace. -- RHaworth 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fiiine. What about Wikipedia:Essay: Non-notability and WP:E:NNOT, tho thats ugly. rrr. Oh well. I think for now I'll just move it to Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay. Fresheneesz 17:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "essay namespace". Essays about Wikipedia go in the Wikipedia namespace. Subpages are appropriate here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

recurring articles

This part was deleted:

"They may be reoccurring pages that, once deleted, reappear because editors repeatedly think an article should be written about the certain subject."

I think its a valid arguement since it touches on the wasted effort that goes into deleting recurring pages. I'd like to know the reason for this passage's removal. Fresheneesz 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Per my discussion with Ephilei above. Pages can be locked against recreation, and routinely are. Look at Category:Protected deleted pages: a couple thousand deleted pages are currently protected with a notice that they shouldn't be recreated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats true, but it doesn't refute the fact that there are recurring pages that aren't and shouldn't be locked. Fresheneesz 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A good example of this is MindTree, which was actually deleted several times and recreated with several alternate names after it was protected (1, 2, 3). It was deleted on terms of advertising (which it was) and recreation of deleted material (again, a good reason), but the original deletion was based on notability. The article was eventually expanded, sourced, and kept (4), and if someone had told the authors that they could just provide said sources and end the recreation battle it may have happened sooner. Ziggurat 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You raise some reasonable points. I would merge them into a general argument about effort, if you're going to include such an argument at all. (I don't think it's a particularly strong one, unless you can demonstrate a really overwhelming amount of effort spent: the answer is just "it's worth it", which is kind of impossible to refute. Keeping arguments few and strong is an important aspect of good rhetoric.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agreed, it's not a very strong point. Ziggurat 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The majority of repeatedly created pages are vanity or spam, deleted by WP:AFD, often by strong consensus. In my view the new page screen should highlight if there was a previously deleted version and why it was deleted. I'm more likely than some to userfyvanity autobiographies, there are some editors who ignore all hints and persist despite use of {{nn-userfy}} or equivalent text. It is very hard to come up with a rule for re-created content which is not ridiculously overcomplicated; best in the end to leave it to common sense. Just zis Guy you know? 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disparity between the "nutshell" summary and the proposal body

I find myself dissagreeing with the summary, but agreeing with the body. In particular I dissagree with:

"Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information inside an article"

Instead I think the summary should read:

"Notability should not be used to argue for or against inclusion of information on Wikipedia – instead, official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability should be used. However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information."

I really do not mind if there are a million articles about schools, pets and teenage rock-bands that will never get a gig. But if "The Death-Thrash-Monkey-Killerz" want to appear on the Heavy Metal page, they better well have sold a few hundred thousand CDs. Perhaps this is covered by WP:NPOV#Undue weight but if this is the case, as the "nutshell" currently stands, it is directly contradicting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. On my understanding of WP:NPOV#Undue weight I actually don't think this is necessarily covered by it. For example if the Heavy Metal page contained a list of "sample Heavy Metal bands" then the only claim that is being made of the bands is that they play Heavy Metal, a claim that says nothing about how important a band they are. (Of course if the list was of "major Heavy Metal bands", then WP:NPOV#Undue weight would apply.) WP:NPOV#Undue weight is designed for areas where there is uncertainty, e.g. in a Unified Field Theory article, there should be a larger mention of String theory, and a smaller mention of Loop Quantum Gravity, because both are considered possibilities, but one is considered more likely than the other. There is no uncertainty about whether "The Death-Thrash-Monkey-Killerz" are indeed a Heavy Metal band.

Within an article you want only the notable facts about that subject. I don't mind the non-notable facts being on WP, but I really don't want them getting in the way of the notable ones. --cfp 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm in complete agreement with all of that, especially the suggested nutshell rewrite. Anyone disagree? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're head is in the right place, but I don't think the nutshell part contradicts undue weight - in fact since that is official guideline, the nutshell line was meant to include it with "official guidelines and policy relating to NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability". Perhaps that needs to be more clear. I think your proposed addition is a good idea, i agree with that. Fresheneesz 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone mind if I make the change described above then? --cfp 17:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, be bold. Fresheneesz 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is not yet right. Not only should articles be encyclopaedic but the content should be encyclopaedic. If a surgeon has a page, the information should be on his education, professional activities, papers he has written etc not a list of his cats and cars over the years, his views on garage music (permissable under these proposed guidelines if sourced since quotes do not contravene WP policies) or pictures of his annual summer holidays (all these things I have seen in articles!). TerriersFan 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My rephrasal was designed to answer this very problem. The idea being that the surgeon's views on garage music would be moved off the surgeon's main page in accordance with: "However, it is valid to use it as a guide to the placement of that information." I'm going to make the change on the main page, but if you have a clearer still rephrase of it, feel free to make it. --cfp 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor issues are not encyclopedic

This section is referenced under the section Non-encyclopedic but is nowhere to be seen now. What should it refer to now? --Pkchan 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. 198.129.219.77 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability is a necessary concept

At peak times up to 8 articles a minute are created so we are not short of articles. In the last four days 11,000 articles have been created; a rate of one million a year.

Already we are having to 'stub' or 'tag' numerous articles that fall short of quality standards in the vain hope that they will be improved. Already editors cannot keep up with the flood of pages needing attention. If we open this tap further, the effect will be that we shall lose complete control of quality, if we haven't already.

Further, the wider we open the net the fewer people will be interested enough in the subjects and the fewer editors there will be to develop and maintain them.

The effect of the concept of minor subjects not being encyclopaedic is that it simply moves the argument from notability to whether something is minor - in some cases a distinction without a difference.

However, what will change is that every schoolboy will be able to write an article on themselves and their mates (people are verifiable and not minor), every tiny company will be able to get a page (companies are verifiable and not minor), every saleable product can get a page, every street can get a page etc.

If Wikipedia becomes a receptacle for the trivial then there is a danger that its reputation for being a serious encyclopaedia will collapse. In turn this would send away the good editors.

Abandon notability at your peril! TerriersFan 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Dbinder (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, what will change is that every schoolboy will be able to write an article on themselves and their mates (people are verifiable and not minor), every tiny company will be able to get a page (companies are verifiable and not minor), every saleable product can get a page, every street can get a page etc." This argument comes up a lot, and is based on a common misconception about what verifiability and reliable sources actually are. Can I suggest that you re-read WP:V and WP:RS to establish why this is not actually the case? Ziggurat 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read them and see no reason why my next-door neighbour's kid would not get an article - He can be verified from the Registry of Births, several mentions in his local paper, on his school's website, on his own website, in the parish magazine etc. And he has not done anything more than any other kid. Once the concept of notability goes, then provided someone is verifiable and sourced they are in - there will be no requirement that they have done anything interesting or important because that is what notability means! TerriersFan 04:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of those sources, none save the Registry and the local paper even comes close to being a reliable source; the registry contains nothing but the fact of the birth, and is therefore irrelevant, and the local paper on its own isn't enough to satisfy "multiple third-party sources". Ziggurat 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice theoretical argument but in practice it won't wash. At the moment most articles that are created have inadequate sourcing. Therefore they are simply tagged. Indeed, if we insisted on multi-sourcing half the encyclopaedia would disappear. Are you proposing that once notability goes that articles without "multiple third-party sources" are deleted? Of course not; they will be tagged as now. The only difference being that trivial pages will survive. TerriersFan 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, if they're likely to have multiple third-party sources they get tagged. When it's clear that there aren't any (a Google / Gnews / Gbook search can establish that very quickly) they get nominated at AfD, just like now, and this is either established for certain or sources are discovered. It's really not different from the mechanism we have now, except that requiring sources is a much less subjective and contentious way to approach it. An article without sources is heresay, and really quite useless in the long run for any encyclopedia. What I always ask when having this conversation is whether someone can point me to an article that would be kept, except for the reasoning of notability. I've yet to see one falling under this criterion that actually deserves to be deleted, and this makes the concept of notability quite simply redundant. Even something as seemingly non-notable as a small-town railway station can be done well, and that's what we should be aiming for. Ziggurat 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail right on the head: good articles with compelling prose is what we are aiming for, because the subject of an article is moot when even notable subjects can be poorly written. However, Ziggurat, one must be careful about using argumentum ad google, I think they have said repeatedly that the entire internet isn't indexed yet. For example, thumb fingernail may not be notable compared to fingernail, but if (say) enough is written about that particular fingernail in the parent article, it deserves its own article according to the way things are now. Also, while there are only 877 hits for the phrase "thumb fingernail", there are 13 billion of them on the planet. It can be demonstrated that Google is not God.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} --DavidHOzAu 04:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

repetitive issue - small town news and vanity pages

People keep saying things to the effect of "I don't agree with this proposal because I don't understand verifiability". People seem to think that an article is verifiable if information about its topic is posted on a lamppost in Schenectady. Is there something we can do about this ? Fresheneesz 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Get a stock reply and put it into a user subpage so you can cut and paste it where necessary. "Zis verifiability, eet does not mean what you theenk eet means..." Ziggurat 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made up this stock reply and already sent it to someone (you can probably guess who):

Hi, the issue of allowing articles small, locally verifiable information - such as an article on yourself - has come up again and again. The basic answer is that if you have sources that aren't "easily verifiable to wikipedians" (ie most likely via multipe reliable internet sources), then your topic or information isn't valid on wikipedia. You can't have an article on yourself anymore than you can have an article on anything thats just been covered in your local newspaper. Its simply not verifiable - especially by multiple sources. The non-notability proposal is *not* about overriding the main pillars or other policy. It is simply an extension, and defines the use of notability as irrelevant *because* other policy like NPOV, V, and NOR already cover the playing field in a much more objective way. I hope that helps you understand our policy better. Thanks. ~~~~

If anyone wants to use it or modify it, go right ahead. Fresheneesz 14:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with requiring sources to be "easily verifiable to wikipedians", and I can see no mention of this requirement on WP:V. Obscure academic journals are not easily verifiable to most wikipedians (unless you happen to be at a top university somewhere, or within reach of a major national library). Even non-obscure academic journals are fairly hard to get access to, as most local libraries will not carry them. Academic books are similar. Yet these should account for the bulk of all WP references. I think we have to accept that our doctor friend's hypothetical article (for example) is verifiable. I don't think this needs to be a problem though (see my comments below). --cfp 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stock reply- Quantity vs Quality issue

Another repetitive issue is the argument formula More articles = less editors who care about subject = poorer quality level. Even though this issue has been answered time and again in the proposal and this talk page, it still persist because of the staying power of the above formula. We need something to counter that-something that is concise and catchy.Agne 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal thought is that this problem is entirely independent of the notability issue. Even if nothing changes, we can expect the rate at which articles are created and edited to carry on growing exponentially (for a while at least), thus whatever happens WP needs systems in place both to help editors narrow down the range of pages they are monitoring (see assorted suggestions about searching on the intersection of categories/tags on meta) and systems to mark pages as differing in quality (something to be partially addressed by the new verified page version system coming in, and partly by new tagging systems developed to aid taking snap shots of the good bits of WP). --cfp 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Likelihood of new article ∝ Number of wikipedians. (people/article is roughly constant.) Actually, we don't have to worry about poor article quality, especially when it is possible for one person to write well-referenced prose for their thesis. It is therefore obvious that the ability to write compelling prose does not depend on the number of people looking at it. (Yes, the extra eyes help, but it isn't necessary when even just one person has adopted an article with goal of making it featured. Heck, I even know of an article that an anon has adopted.) Besides, if one creates an article, one is proud of his/her work and will check back to make sure it isn't vandalised. The nature of wiki means that the average article quality will not fall below a certain level. More articles = poorer quality level is rather poor logic given the circumstances. --DavidHOzAu 13:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

stagnant

The development of this guideline seems to have stopped, is this a good time to call for a discussion on making it a real guideline? Fresheneesz 02:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the ideas in the guideline, but before we call for its adoption, I'd like to suggest a bit more work to improve the quality of expression. I've done some cleanup, but the proposal is still some way from being clear and concise. -- JimR 07:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)