Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation

An archive of older discussions is available at /Archive 1.

Should WP:N be made Policy?

Since we are having an evaluation of WP:N, I thought I should sound out whether there is support for promoting the guideline to policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonable question, but don't we need to agree a version that is less ambiguous, and has more consensus, first? - Pointillist (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since this RFC is just a dress rehersal for such an eventuality, then it is a good time to ask this question. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll go further: it's a fine question, which we should have in mind while we try to agree a better version, so yes this is a good time to ask it. I just don't think anyone should answer it yet! - Pointillist (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Except that nobody (including A. Nobody) has put forward a better version. That is one of the problems with this RFC - there are no solid proposals, except perhaps this one. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:N is a guideline because exceptions need to be made to it when appropriate. Policies like WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:OR serve a similar purpose... the GNG is made to be an interpretation of them (although it does add in a few more inclusion criteria). The GNG's use is much more subjective, more so than any of those policies, so I think that it should be kept as a guideline. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible that a revised version of WP:N could be agreed that would not need exceptions, and thus could become policy? - Pointillist (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Possibly, but I think that the only way to do that is to make it a strict interpretation of existing policies. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:RULES#Policy-related_pages:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. They are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia. Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.

Current content policies: WP:Biographies of living persons, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, WP:Non-free content criteria, WP:Verifiability, WP:What Wikipedia is not, and some applications of WP:Ignore all rules.

Current article-content guidelines: WP:Citing sources, WP:External links, portions of WP:Images, WP:No disclaimers in articles, WP:Notability, and WP:Reliable sources.

You are basically asking if notability better fits in as a policy, which should always be enforced except in rare cases where IAR trumps it, or as a guideline, which has some more wiggle room. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

From above: Galvin, I appreciate your tenacity. Repeating the same thing over and over tends to make an idea stick in readers minds. I hate to be repeat myself again, but #1, I have never seen a requirement in a RfC on a policy or guideline demanding an alternative. #2, wikipedia thrived before notability, and it can thrive after notability. There are hundreds of rules already, that all of the problems wikipedia faces, will be aptly covered without notability. A nobody, and no one else has to propose a better version. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right that, technically, they don't have to present an alternative. But in practice, they might want to. Because arguing to abandon it is not going to gain consensus. Never will. Human beings are weird like that: it's not enough to say "don't do that", because they want you to persuade them to do something else. Randomran (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sad to see the opposition to this, which is the most reasonable course of action. Of course WP:N should be made policy, rigorously interpreted and vigorously applied, with the goal being to constrain articles to being about things that matter. Multiple sources, independent of the thing being discussed, with substantial coverage of the thing being discussed, and not a source of parochial interest (such as the University of Austin's campus newspaper covering the University of Austin's campus bar, which some people seem to think conveys notability to Dixie Chicken (bar). Why do we need notability standards? Because there are a near-infinite number of things in the universe, and once you start including one imaginary universe per fictional work, "near infinite" starts to feel like an understatement. Each of those articles is, like it or not, a resource drain. Someone has to watch over each one to protect it from vandalism. Someone has to verify each and every statement. That effort is only worthwhile if the article itself is worthwhile. There's no need to expend that effort on yak-herding villages that appear on one map and one census tract. There's no need to expend that effort on every MySpace band. There's no need to expend that effort on every bridge that someone wrote a name on in red crayon, every character in every video game ever made, every episode of every television series ever made, every home in the US (for 99% of which, yes, I could write an article detailing who built it, when, its sales price history, ownership history, tax bills, remodeling history, crimes committed at that address, etc., all based on sources that pass WP:V). People argue that this burden doesn't have to be assumed, that if people wrote the article, they'll maintain it. That argument just doesn't wash. I've got 4500 articles on my watchlist, and don't do much of anything to them but pull out vandalism, unsourced material, and false statements. Many of them were created by 8-year-olds one Saturday afternoon, and that 8-year-old had an 8-year-old's attention span, so now others are maintaining and protecting it. We need WP:N to protect us from editors that would create articles indiscriminately.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself. Themfromspace (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While strong cases have been made for demoting this guideline, I have yet to see any valid reason for promoting it. If anything we need protection from those who think they know better than everybody else. So long as knowledge is relevant to some of our community and can be verified through reliable sources, we should keep it. I'm all for objective inclusion criteria that keeps out hoaxes, copy vios, and libel, but cannot understand how anyone can support something that allows for eltism and subjectivity to be the standard of inclusion. All that does is needlessly alienate thousands of editors and readers while only appeasing a certain segment of our community. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you a great one. May I suggest that you reread it? WP:N isn't an inherently subjective policy. It appears subjective because legions of editors attempt to argue around it and dismiss clear statements because it interferes with their desires. The existence of multiple sources, independent of the subject, not of local or parochial interest, that examine a topic directly and in detail is a fairly objective test: sources can be offered up and examined, their independence can be examined and verified, the detail level of their examination can be discussed, and their local nature can be examined and verified. People attempt to argue for passing mentions, local sources, and worse yet, completely missing sources, not because WP:N is subjective, but because reading WP:N objectively excludes topics that they want to write articles about.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The word itself is inherently subjective, so why not go with a word that is not inherently subjective? Why not just have "inclusion guideline" or "inclusion criteria" on which we can say objectively what the scope of Wikipedia is? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a disingenous argument. Are you saying that if we took WP:N, called it WP:INCLUSIONGUIDELINE, but kept exactly the same text, requiring multiple sources, independent of the thing being discussed, with substantial coverage of the thing being discussed, and not a source of parochial interest, that you would suddenly find it agreeable? That that change would somehow affect its objectivity?—Kww(talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying to remove everything that is subjective as well, i.e. we eliminate all of the words determined subjective per User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not except for reliable (I think there is a level of common sense objectivity regarding "reliable") and re-write it as something like User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines, which is a start at coming up with an entirely objective standard of inclusion. Suggestions on welcome on its talk page, but I want to come up with something that is based on other guidelines and policies that removes the subjectivity, but accomplishes what really would be a reasonable compromise between inclusionists and deletionists. I want to avoid something that is needlessly convoluted and confusing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't words like "independent", "local", and "detailed" subject to the same level of common sense objectivity?—Kww(talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Because to some a published strategy guide put out by a publisher different than the game publisher is independent, whereas others claim otherwise. To some a few journal articles is detailed, whereas others will contend detailed means the subject of dissertations. Etc. I have seen these interpreted subjectively as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This "elitism" you talk about is exactly what makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia. In order for Wikipedia to be taken seriously it has to have its set of standards. The reason why Wikipedia is ridiculed by academics and serious encyclopedists is because it is seen as an anarchy that is subject to the personal whims of "kiddie" editors. Wikipedia needs to grow up and join the ranks of the "big boy" encyclopedias, and to do so it must establish its limits and boundaries to that which it can adequately manage, and then try to fill every hole within those limits. The notability guidelines are what keeps Wikipedia from growing out of control. They make it so that when someone says "I looked it up in Wikipedia", you know that what they are talking about has relevance. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground of all the facts and statistics of the world, but a summary of how the facts have made a difference in the world. The notabilty guidelines are here to establish the boundaries of the encyclopedia, and in doing so they are what make the encyclopedia a legitimite source of knowledge. Themfromspace (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The elitism needless restricts knowledge and turns away thousands of editors and millions of readers. We are actually ridiculed for deleting articles on such shobby bases as "notability." I agree that we should have standards, but objective standards based on what Wikipedia is, which is not just a general encyclopedia or Britannica clone, but a collection of information also found in specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. If we want to establish boundaries, then we can do so through WP:V and WP:FIVE. "Notability" as an inherently subjective terms just creates an endless battleground of misinterpretations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The opposite is true: since Wikipedia relies on notability as its inclusion criteria, this means that ordinary editors (like you and me) don'tt have to rely on the opinions of one or two editors to create an article. We know that it is the personal opinions of the editorial team at Britiannica that decide what topics are included, and what are not. This is the same for every other encylopedia, except Wikipedia. Only here are we free to decide what topics can and can't be included. Basically, everywhere else it is down to the owners to decide (or their appointed editorial team). --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The vast majority of editors don't spend time in AfDs. As such usually less than a half dozen editors in a mere five days determine inclusion and typically base their rationales on "non-notable" vs. "notable" typically without even referencing the guideline with an internal link. In any event, I will begin drafting my alternate proposal at User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines‎. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think that any alternative will be very much the same as WP:N. Once your realise that reliable secondary sources are the best you can get this side of judgement day, then it make sense to rely on them as the basis for encyclopedic inclusion criteria. Once you realise that there is no better alternative to WP:N, you will see that promoting it to policy makes a lot of sense. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Non-notability is a better alternative. Reliable primary sources are consistent with reference guides historically. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about "non-notability" as a guideline too in order to balance out the non NPOV, fuzziness of this subjective "notability" guideline. Doesn't anyone see the subjectivity and the slanted POV that gets involved with determining this nebulous concept of "general notability"? The term "general" makes it more nebulous.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly suggest withdrawing

Compacted discussion

Only if we want to ruin Wikipedia once and for all. Strongly suggest withdrawing this non-serious suggestion. All thsi RfC has shown is that a paltry 34 support keeping it as a guideline, which is still several times less than those who oppose it and as such move to mark as disputed or historical given the reality. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it a non-serious suggestion. The proposer provided quite a bit of rather seriously-worded rationale, and it would be help your case if you didn't ridicule everything your opposers did. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:59, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

This is downright ludicrous and so I absolutely will not humor ridiculousness. If you thought marking it as humorous wasn't serious, then this surely can't be. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, we understand your point, but please try not to call other users' contributions "ludicrous." Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I will take serious proposals seriously. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sure many individuals observing these proceedings have thought your statements more or less ludicrous as well. Out of respect for the forum and each other, and for the interest of constructive debate, we generally demonstrate the restraint to keep such sentiments to ourselves. It would be appreciated if the favor were returned. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:10, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

The favor has not been returned. Look at those who tried to call the suggestion of demoting it with hyperbole like "insane" and such. If people can dish out that level of nonsense then they should be able to handle when their own proposals are called for what they are as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

...called for what you view them as, I think you mean. You must of course realize, as a reasonable person, that regardless of how strongly you feel that this is still a matter of opinion. Just as you must surely realize that treating all who share a particular view based on the actions of one is less than enlightened. Besides which, calling an idea preposterous and suggesting that it was made as a joke are two very different things, as the latter is a violation of WP:AGF and the other is not. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:25, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Saying something should be promoted as a policy when others supported keeping it as a guideline, another number of editors beyond me said to get rid of it altogether and there's a clear split over renaming seems pointed. At this point, the one proposal that still seems legitimate is over renaming and perhaps any of the others are distractions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've long felt that getting rid of WP:N is a distraction that will never go anywhere. But unfortunately, the other discussions are already stained by that proposal, making compromise and consensus-building much harder. You can't reach out for someone's hand after you've repeatedly slapped theirs away. Randomran (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The support was against demotion, not necessarily against promotion to policy, as that wasn't was one the options presented at that point. Nevertheless you are welcome to deem the proposal unlikely to succeed. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:50, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, per "ignore all rules", I don't feel I or anyone need respect it as a guideline anyway, and nor should we as a policy. I truly believe "notability" to be morally wrong. Part of it is emotional, of course, but I whole-heartedly regard it as the kind of dangerous ideology that tries to declare only what some arbitrary elite regards as worthwhile is worthwhile and whether done in good faith or not, that mentality is one that goes against academic traditions and rather excludes people and takes us down a road of intolerance and ignorance. And I have personal reasons for feeling this strongly and am deeply depressed to see pretty much anyone think suppressing human knowledge on a subjective basis as acceptable. We're supposed to learn from history and identify these sorts of things. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the guideline is morally wrong, then what are you trying to say about the people who support it and author it? You need to assume good faith here. Randomran (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some sincerely mean well, but some are indeed bullies trying to force a needlessly narrow-minded view upon others. I assume good faith, but not at the point of naiveity. A lot of people have truly believed that what they were doing was right, even when it meant others suffered as a result. But look as you know from elsewhere, this is disgusting me, eating me up inside and at this point, all I can hope for is that people will realize the danger of limiting something that advertises as the ultimate encyclopedia, free encyclopedia for everyone on the basis of a subjective and elitist criteria like notability. We should be able to stand up against anything that suggests what some people think is relevant is better than what others do. Here we have this wonderful opportunity to do what the philosophes of the 18th century only dreamed of in an age in which authority figures attempted to suppress and outlaw their work. PLEASE do not let us suffer the same indignity of having some declare that some of the knowledge we cover that matters to millions of readers and editors is not worth covering, because a handful of bloggers mock us or because 34 editors declare in a snapshot in time RfC the guideline should stay. We can and should have a serious discussion about criteria for inclusion based on objective and practical reasoning. Subjective terminology should not even be a consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your threshold for assuming good faith seems incompatible with constructive discussion when dealing with topics that "eat you up inside". If you've reached the point where you are no longer assuming good faith, as you say, then you need to recuse yourself. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:21, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

There is a point where we assume good faith, then there is a point where evidence leads us to reasonably conclude that some may not be acting in good faith. If I see some trying to force a viewpoint on the wider community that would mean ruining the Wikipedia experience for thousands of editors and readers, it is hard to see how that is a good thing if done just to satisfy some bloggers and the fraction of editors who work in AfDs and policy areas. And yeah, certain things have happened that are making this emotional, and which is why I do plan to log off. And Randomran knows why I feel this strongly and can vouche for why I am going to recuse myself momentarily without revealing specificlaly what has happened (nothing he did). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what? You're absolutely right. We can't be expected to assume good faith no matter what, and there does come a point where one considers the possibility that his or here opposition is acting in bad faith. You happen to be the only one who feels that way out of all the participants in this discussion, so I question its merit. Nevertheless, when that time comes, the proper course of action when one suspects bad-faith is to make a report at WP:ANI. Carrying on the discussion here instead, while assuming bad faith, is not appropriate, even if you're correct in your observation. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:53, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion is right that if you can't assume that a guideline exists in good faith, then it's time to step away before you inflame the discussion or get yourself in trouble. That said, if you think editors are *applying* it in bad faith, you should focus on their behavior. Or if they are *mis*applying it in good faith, then you might have more success clarifying WP:N. Because your repeated efforts to demote/remove WP:N are verging on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Randomran (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that this guideline has support given that only 34 supported keeping it in this RfC when 190 have userboxes opposing it is a far worse case of "I didn't here it", because the community has spoken that a large enough segment of it opposes this guideline. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT says. It's based on ignoring consensus, which is obtained in discussions. Not userboxes. Userboxes mean virtually nothing, and would be canceled out by the number of editors who have cited the guideline in merge/redirect/delete discussions anyway. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it is ignoring reality or practice, because the majority of our contributors and readers do not bother with RfCs and AfDs. Rather they focus on writing and reading content. And that counts a lot more to me, i.e. those who have built our mainspace articles, than anything else. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that lots of people edit articles doesn't contradict WP:N. What would invalidate WP:N -- to the point that we demote it or remove it -- is if people didn't use it to delete/redirect/merge articles. But they do. The real point is that every attempt to remove it has failed. It's time to abandon that as a WP:POINT, and focus on clarifying it or improving it. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When the question gets similar supports/oppose as abolishing notability did, 35 support keep / 8 abolish, roughly 81.3% (43/35) people opposing the suggestion, then I think we can close it with no one arguing.

Randomran, there are a lot of editors who don't take part in these policy discussions. I think the WP:FICT failure to become a guideline happened because I contacted a lot of people via the talk pages of articles who usually don't get involved in these discussions. That hasn't happened here. I don't suggest it, because there is no one place that editors who don't support notability edit, unlike the WP:FICT, so he only place to alert them would be on their talk page, which would violate Canvassing. Ikip (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind we had a watchlisted RFC -- the widest possible notification on Wikipedia you can undertake -- on WP:N that pointed to the same result. The participants here may be smaller, but they're basically proportional to what that previous RFC said. You *would* have to canvass to get something other than a strong consensus to keep, and even then I think the best you could do is no consensus to demote. Randomran (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

All-inclusive reasoning

← I think academia has traditionally operated contrary to that all-inclusive reasoning. Authoritative texts have operated on more of a principal that their level of exclusion determines their stature. That includes encyclopedias. The pedantic and "elitist" principles you oppose are the same as those that have always been upheld by the people writing the paper encyclopedias, which you seem to confusingly oppose, while simultaneously touting those very academic traditions as paramount. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:11, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

We are not a paper textbook or paper encyclopedia, however. Those texts had to be limited for practical reasons that do not apply to us. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So you believe that paper encyclopedias, if they had the physical space, would have included trivial information? Published encyclopedias on DVD seem to be the test, yet those are not all-inclusive. So the space limitation would seem to not be the reason. As I said, academia itself is the culprit, as its tradition is that of exclusion, not universal inclusion. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:18, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you both. Because anybody (including A Nobody) can contribute to it, we need a set of inclusion criteria that work objectively and don't rely on the personal opinion of so called experts. I agree with Equazcion that WP:N is likely to remain stuck in the middle as a guideline. Nonetheless, I don't think it isn't all that ludicrous to propose its promotion, given that WP:N is so tightly bound with WP:NOT, because if a topic fails one, it is likely to fail the other as well. In fact that reminds me that WP:N is actually valuable in its own right as a defence against deletion nomination based on failing WP:NOT, and I can only remember one notable topic ever being deleted even though it cited reliable secondary sources, but I think the topic (Socionomics) fell foul of other content polcies and guidelines (WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE respectively).
  Overall, I like the idea of WP:N becoming policy and part of the Five Pillars, as I think the motto "Wikipedia - Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" works better than "Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia". --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) DVDs do have limited space, and not nearly as large an array of editors to create them, so what they contain is more limited (although much larger than that in a book). Wikipedia's space is essentially unlimited, and it has over 100,000 active users working to maintain and improve it. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So you claim that it is not general practice in academic texts to exclude topics merely for not reaching a certain standard? I understand of course that space limitation may play some part,and that certain topics the editors may want to include to not make it into published texts for that reason, however do you think academic texts would include articles on homer simpson's car and individual pornography websites if they had the space to do so? What about online encyclopedias? Is the reason we don't see such articles there merely because there aren't enough editors to handle the load? Would Britannica Online have an article on Homer Simpson's car, if only they had the manpower to cover such subjects? Does topic exclusion play no part whatsoever in a publisher's efforts to maintain its reputation? Equazcion •✗/C • 19:28, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• A Nobody, for someone who claims to hate subjective terminology, you seem to embrace the subjectivity of notability wholeheartedly. You frequently argue for content that you think, on a gut level, is notable, regardless of third-party sources. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith. Just that if you're wondering why people have a hard time taking your efforts at compromise seriously, this might help you to understand why. It seems that you're hellbent on destroying the third-party sourcing requirement by any means, sometimes asking to remove the requirement, sometimes attacking the name "notability", sometimes attacking the editors, sometimes trying to come up with novel arguments or essays as to why we should ignore the need for third-party sources. You'll never be able to take part in a compromise if that's your strategy, because nobody will understand your motives, or they will think your motive is to get your way without any interest in actually compromising. Randomran (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• One has to in order to counter the subjective "non-notables" and demonstrate how absurd they are. Once we get beyond notability, I and other won't have to say something is "notable" in a discussion in order to counter those who say it is "non-notable". Once we get beyond that, then we can have a real serious effort at a compromise on inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, you don't have to. A lot more AFDs reach a compromise more easily when people argue for merges and redirects off the bat. The problem is people don't know how to negotiate, because they always think they can get the better of their opponents. They think that taking a hardline position is more likely to extract concessions. It doesn't. The number of articles you've seen deleted is evidence of that. And you wouldn't be here if you felt like your strategy of "keep: it IS notable" was working. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• My strategy since renaming has worked relatively well. See User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions for a list of all closed AfDs I have commented in since renaming. I consider merges that keep edit history intact as acceptable outcomes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your strategy in most of those was to point out reliable third-party sources, let alone add them. That's exactly the strategy that I think will be successful. Randomran (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Which shows that when appropriately challenged using "notability" for deletion or keeping is not what matters, but rather using sources, which is more a "verifiability" and "reliable sources" issue. Anyway, I have to stop at this point, I need to focus on the real life stuff we discussed elsewhere. So take care and hopefully "notability" will be replaced by something that does make sense and does help our project and is considerate to our broader volunteers and readership busy building our content yet not necessarily commenting here. Au revoir. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Like I said, if you said straight up that you agree third-party sources are necessary, you'd have a lot more success than trying to demote/remove the third-party source requirement. You might actually attract some common ground beyond those userboxes, and help us find something better than WP:N. Randomran (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I do not agree that third-party sources are always necessary as published strategy guides for example should suffice for spinoff lists of characters and weapons. Happy Valentine's Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, can you clarify what your mean here with an example? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)I don't see how it shows that... You accepted the notability challenge by suggesting sources to satisfy its criteria, rather than dissuade the challenge. Not that I'm trying to keep you here, go do your real-life stuff. PS same as Randomran, only he said it better. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:02, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent)I'm coming into this a little late, but A Nobody's above remarks demonstrate to me the fundamental disconnect between what he believes Wikipedia should be and what I believe it should be. One of my personal core beliefs as it regards Wikipedia is "information is not knowledge." Simply cramming more information into Wikipedia does not necessarily improve it. I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia was, is, or should be to list every minor character and weapon from every video game ever produced. I play video games, but I don't read such articles and I doubt many other gamers do. Whether a strategy guide is published by the games publisher or by someone else, it's still just a game strategy guide. It's a special interest publication of absolutely no interest to anyone not playing that specific game. This "elitism" you speak of is not denying users access to knowledge, because this type of content is just information. What deeper knowledge does a reader require on exactly how a gun in a video game works, and how is humanities' understanding of itself advanced by detailing such information? This is the reason we have the notability guideline. Wikipedia should not become a repository of gamer cruft and detailed descriptions of every action figure that has ever been made. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should be what it's broader community of readers and editors believe it should be. I would rather have article "cruft" (the most nonsenical non-word I have ever seen...) than AfDcruft or instructioncruft. A strategy guide may be relevant to more people than a guidebook on plants, or a guidebook on birds, etc. All three books' worth of information is relevant for a paperless encyclopedia, because they all represnt aspects of knowledge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Equazcion, I cannot agree with you more. Most all of my editing is performed with the goal of making Wikipedia a trustworthy source of knowledge both in and out of academia. I find it ironic that the sources some users cite as being definitive proof that Wikipedia should be more open (such as the NYRB), are in fact some of the most exclusionist publications. In fact, that's what makes them trustworthy sources. The NYRB might only take <10% of its submissions, most of those being from very accomplished writers. When we read something in the NYRB, we know that it has undergone a strict vetting process in which only the best quality of thought and writing would make it through. If the NYRB would practise what it preaches it would devolve from an elitist (in a good way) publication which is highly respected to just another indiscriminate collection of information, something that Wikipedia itself is not. Themfromspace (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yet, Wikipedia is rapidly becoming an indiscriminate collection of AFDs and RfC, and other things than actual articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• You say above that "Wikipedia should be what it's broader community of readers and editors believe it should be". That I think we can all agree on. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the reaction at the RFC makes it clear to me that your views do not have the support of the "broader community." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The RfC with participation form what less than a hundred editors shows that the minority of editors who felt like commenting here are split over their opinions. The reality of article creation by thousands of editors and page views by millions of readers shows that my views have the support of the majority of our editors and readers in practice. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is quite the piece of original research and interpretation of "facts". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's stating reality for reality. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• C'mon now. New users create articles that are not appropriate because they don't know any better. I did it myself once before I registered my account, but once I became an active user I realized that the article I had written was unsourced original research on a topic that was not at all notable on it's own. The reality is that the millions of new users add the most new pages, and a few hundred long term editors influence policy through discussions like this and RFA. I know as well as all of you that this supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, but the the raw numbers in the polling are clearly opposed to demoting, renaming, splitting, or eliminating WP:N. On the flip side, promoting it to policy is not getting much support either. It looks to me like we are firmly entrenched at square one. The active editors who understand our current policies and guidelines seem to be comfortable with WP:N right where it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Extension of RFC

The RFC is slated to end soon and there is still a lot of activity, therefore I propose that it be extended until March 5 15 so we can absorb all the opinions that we can.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm... aren't RFCs 30 days? This has only been open for 11 or so. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They do usually last 30 days. The way this looks now though, it should be opened to a wider audience, like the ArbCom and Steward elections, or shut down soon, as the main page seems to be turning into an endless repetitive circular argument that has wandered off topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother translating biographies

Be sure to mention why a person notable in one language Wikipedia is not necessarily considered notable in another language Wikipedia.

E.g.,

Q: Should I translate this xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bla biography into language yy for a yy.wikipedia.org article?

A: don't bother, it will probably be deleted. Jidanni (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely unhelpful, in most cases not true. There are cases wher an article in one language will not meet the thresholds in other languages, but in most cases, an article that was kept in one language will be kept in others as well (of course, a poor article that was not yet scrutinized in one language does not give a free pass to be created in another as well). Fram (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

time to close?

This RFC has been open for a month. I think it's offered some enlightening discussion, and given us more information. But there's no real consensus here around any proposal. The most I can say is we're stuck with notability, we're stuck with it being named notability, and it's stuck as a guideline not a policy. Randomran (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I find myself in agreement with every word of that statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Very concise, those few words capture it all, very good. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yup. If anything, there's somewhat of a consensus for the current state of affairs. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• For better or for worse, I mostly agree. But I hope this RFC will finally show people that reforming the GNG is going to take incremental change. Most editors don't want revolutionary or heroic change. Crusading might win you a few high fives from people who agree with you, but beyond a certain point it just makes you look ridiculous, unreasonable, and impossible to work with. Not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is. Randomran (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would actually like to invoke an extension of this RFC beyond the standard 30 day period. There are still interesting comments swirling around and commenting is still very active. When the comments cool down to the point you can see comments 2 weeks back in the first 50 results would be a more opportune time for cloture. In fact, we should descretly add this to the top banner. That would be the last step before we conclude. Keep in mind that this RFC is non-binding, it sees where our opinions lie for the possibility of a future proposal.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an interesting comments that have been made since the RFC closed? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: the "no consensus" verdict

I think that it should be pointed out that there definitely was a consensus for not elevating this "guideline" to policy. That proposal was decidedly rejected. It was unfortunately decided to keep it as a guideline. I think that this should be pointed out. What is the purpose of saying that there is no consensus in these two RfCs? There was perhaps no consensus in the "renaming" and other RfCs.--Drboisclair (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think the point is that there is not a consensus supporting any particular changes. Usually when there is no consensus for a change, things remain as they are, so whether it's "pointed out" somewhere or not, obviously WP:N is not going to become policy anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it shows that by and large the community is split over what to do with regards to "notability," i.e. that it lacks a clear overall consensus. Some think it should be renamed, some promoted, some demoted, etc. In other words, no real agreement on what to do with it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think a more correct way to view the RFC is that there are many editors who wish to evade Wikipeidia's existing policies and guidelines, but there is no agreed way for them to do so, other than to migrate to Wikia or Wookieepedia.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Our best bet is to just keep everything here for convenience. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that we can see more than "no consensus", but actually a consensus against promoting or demoting WP:N. Let alone renaming it. That's not to say that the current state is ideal, but it's incumbent on all of us to come up with smaller modifications (aside from promotion/deletion/renaming) that will gain consensus. Maybe that can finally happen if people abandon the strategy of debating major overhauls. Randomran (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)