Wikipedia talk:Notability/Noticeboard

Proposed intro rewrite

The current intro has a few weaknesses. Ideally N/N should be a major route by which users can discover if an article should or shouldn't be viable. Apart from the specific cases of COI and BLP, notability (and NOT) are in the vast majority of cases the key reasons why a topic can or can't have an article.

It would be sensible to accept questions of the form "does this breach What Wikipedia is not?" as well. Questions about this area are very often associated with notability and this is the actual policy that underpins, informs, expands, interacts with, and provides the policy sourcing for the notability concept in the first place ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection..."). WP:NOT overlaps and works with WP:N in a way that (say) BLP doesn't, and doesn't have a noticeboard of its own, so handling them here is logical and benefits both pages.

I have redrafted the intro to achieve the following:

Crisper style
Noticeboard handles notability and NOT
Brief intro explanation of notability and that evidence is needed, and usual nature of evidence
Brief intro explanation what to do if the concern is that there aren't sufficient sources for notability.
Disclaimers: N/N does not address the content within articles, nor does it address how articles are written, and also it does not provide a guarantee of article acceptance.
Other common "is this a valid article?" noticeboards and when to use them - WP:COI/N, WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N
Added collapse box of common case guidance per User:Johnuniq's suggestion below
Added link to "new post" and archive search.
Moved header to subpage Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/header
Under COI I've put they must read the guideline and "unless extremely experienced" ask here if the article is viable (if COI applies). Hopefully putting it that strongly (many non-editors will have heard about about "notability") will encourage at least some would-be paid/professional writers to check first for notability before writing articles that we waste time on. If the article is viable then checking up front is sensible for a COI case ("extra eyeballs") and will reassure them too.

I've also linked it from Template:Notabilityguide and WP:N where it was omitted or obscure, and hence unknown to many users.

Outstanding point: The last paragraph "Please link both... or fails to meet" may be redundant now and perhaps removable. Leaving this for wider eyeballs.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I would clarify that it is about articles nearer the top. Perhaps change the first sentence:

Editors can post questions about whether or not a subject is likely to be suitable for its own article on Wikipedia,...

Also, there should be some brief mention of WP:NOTNEWS, although I can't think how to phrase that atm. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Own article" done. ~~"NOTNEWS" - maybe a brief collapse box of some common cases as a 1st section wouldn't hurt?~~ Added FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work FT2--anything that makes WP policy clearer and WP easier to use is great-well done--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reversion of delete on the discussion titled "Frapeing"

I believe this discussion,flawed as it is, has the potential to be a useful consideration of the meaning of notability and request that it not be reverted again for a week.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Notability Noticeboard. WT:N is over that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Moved from Talk:2010 Qur'an-burning controversy.

2010 Qur'an-burning controversy → Terry Jones (pastor) — Terry Jones has burned the Quran on March 20th, 2011, but didn't get much media coverage. Hence he is no longer famous for a single event. Pass a Method talk 08:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm the nominator Pass a Method talk 09:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was voting to move it to "Qur'an-burning controversy, not "Terry Jones (pastor)". InverseHypercube (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply having it at "Quran-burning controversy" since we need to note which Qur'an-burning controversy we are referring to (there have been others). As for moving it to a bio article on Terry Jones... what other events is he known for? Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard isn't listed in the header with all the other noticeboards

Resolved

I just noticed that this noticeboard is not listed in the header text (Noticeboards and related pages) in the header. WP:RSN, NORN, WP:BLPN, etc. are listed but not the notability noticeboard. Is there a reason for this? If not, it should be added. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be there, and having had a cursory look for a previous discussion on the matter there doesn't seem to be one, so I've added it. I've put it in "content" which may not be the right section (as notability isn't really about the content of an article but whether the subject is fit for inclusion). waggers (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think 'content' is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed linking of entries in lists of redlinks

In a list article, the guidance on redlinks is: Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. I assume the disposition of redlinks requires a case by case agreement as to the reasonableness of each link ever having an associated article, i.e. the topic's notability. If editors cannot provide source(s) to support notability for a redlinked list entry, but will not agree to delinking the entry, would this be a good place to resolve the issue? If so, in a list with many redlinks, would it make sense to bring up all of the entries for which a good faith effort fails to locate a source to support notability? Joja lozzo 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC input needed

There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of the page

In the past week I've seen a lot of content posted to the page that is in no way an attempt to seek input on the notability of a subject, but just wildly posting the wanted content of an article. I've been removing it, but I see that it's in the archives too.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inherent notability of buildings?

I nominated Toscano_(Miami) for CSD as promotional. The creator's reply pointed me to the navbox where there are stub articles for a large number of buildings in Miami that do not appear to have any particular notability. Do buildings have inherent notability?

500_Brickell
701 Brickell Avenue
Avenue on Brickell
and many others in the navboxes of these

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, buildings are not inherently notable. Having said that, I have removed the speedy deletion template as the article was not promotional, I would recommend PROD or AfD. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed / Historical

The Notability Noticeboard is closed and marked historical per the consensus at this village pump proposal.

ʍ w 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page content

Re: [1] @Biosthmors: The "historical" template is the standard for use in these situations, ~~and you can "modify where to tell people where to go" by going to the header subpage.~~ I had planned to put the historical message directly on the main page, and comment out the transclusion to the header subpage but leave the subpage unmodified (for easy resurrection), which might have prevented this confusion, but I didn't make the changes, User:Armbrust did, immediately after closing the discussion and before I had any chance to.

The editnotice, however, is protected, so any proposed edits will have to go through an edit request. Because of the hassle in modifying it, I was considering not applying the editnotice unless and until there is a demonstrable need for it; needless to say, it wasn't me who requested the editnotice be created.

Like I said at the village pump, I'm not entirely opposed to using something other than the historical template. I'd like to keep most of the links (as they were all suggested at wither the village pump or AN/I), but we could possibly display them in some other way. Though the historical template is used in many similar situations, and if you really think it "discourages participation", you should consider proposing a change to the template itself (on the template talk page, where it has been brought up before).

ʍ w 13:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I've put the historical message directly on the main page, and reverted the header to it's active state, but commented out the transclusion link; hopefully this is less confusing.

ʍ w 13:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on closure

This was closed due to inactivity, with the idea that we should direct readers to a more active discussion page. Fine, it's closed - but there is no redirect, nor a suggestion where to go ask questions about notability. Heck, I am an experienced Wikipedian and I have no idea where to ask now, outside talk of WP:N. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I can think of three major types of questions about notability:

For discussions of the Notability guidelines: WT:N.
For discussions of the Notability of an article, try: the articles talk page, relevant WikiProjects, RfC (in that order); or AfD.
For discussion of a topics' notability before an article is created:

This is the trickiest one. I'd say WP:Help desk (others suggested WP:VPM).

Or do you mean something else?

Also, I see that you, like Masem (the one oppose at the Village pump discussion) have never made even a single edit to the noticeboard. You say: "I have no idea where to ask now", where were you asking before? ʍ w 07:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mysterious Whisper: "the articles talk page" (which nobody reads for most topics of dubious notability), "relevant WikiProjects" (which 80% time are inactive and nobody will notice it there)", "RfC (in that order);" (fair enough, but it seems a bit too much) "or AfD." (which is what I'll usually do). Still, I'd have voted keep on this discussion, this forum seemed useful to me. Anyway, we may want to add a little note based on what you wrote to this page, for people who may not be sure where to ask their n-related question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm not sure of exactly what you want added; WP:Notability, WP:RfC, WP:AfD, WP:Help desk, and WP:VPM, are all already there. Feel free to add whatever you like to the header (though I'd appreciate a chance to comment before any similar changes are requested for the editnotice).

There's no doubt that, in theory, the noticeboard could have and should have been useful. But in practice, with so little participation from experienced editors (there were only two active responders on the noticeboard at the time I started the Village pump discussion, and they were the first to support the proposal), it wasn't doing any good. I'd be very interested in any solid ideas anyone has to guarantee the significantly higher participation, now and in the future, that would be required to make the board worthwhile. Without that, any comments in favor of opening the noticeboard seem to boil down to an unsubstantiatable WP:ILIKEIT. ʍ w 13:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have to agree with you. With the level of active editors dropping, I am afraid this is a sign of things to come, as more and more specialized areas of Wikipedia draw below sustainable participation level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]