Misplaced Pages

talk:Notability: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:13, 7 December 2008 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,157 edits →Troubled← Previous edit Revision as of 15:14, 7 December 2008 edit undoPixelface (talk | contribs)12,801 edits →NNC again: reply to Gavin.collinsNext edit →
Line 65: Line 65:
:::::*Okay. How about I want to revert the NNC section to the version that existed before an ] the link to ], because "undue weight" has nothing to do with notability? If information has to be "notable" to be in an article, what's to stop someone from removing anything they personally deem "non-notable" from ]? Why should this guideline recommend such a thing? --] (]) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) :::::*Okay. How about I want to revert the NNC section to the version that existed before an ] the link to ], because "undue weight" has nothing to do with notability? If information has to be "notable" to be in an article, what's to stop someone from removing anything they personally deem "non-notable" from ]? Why should this guideline recommend such a thing? --] (]) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::*One obvious reason is that if a topic is notable, then adding content that is "off-topic" or only remotely related to the subject matter of the article is not in the spirit of the guideline. You have not answered this point which I made earlier in this discussion, but it still needs to be addressed. --] (]) 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::*One obvious reason is that if a topic is notable, then adding content that is "off-topic" or only remotely related to the subject matter of the article is not in the spirit of the guideline. You have not answered this point which I made earlier in this discussion, but it still needs to be addressed. --] (]) 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*Gavin, I'm 99% certain that the spirit of this guideline is that it recommends that a thing be "notable" before an editor creates an article about that thing. Because various inclusion guidelines were created before this guideline. Because "non-notable" was often used as a reason to delete in deletion debates. "Off-topic" content != "non-notable" content. Did you still want examples of why I think reverting NNC to the version that existed March 15 before an indefinitely blocked user changed NNC is a good idea? For one, all the stuff about undue weight was added by an ''indefinitely blocked user''. If you want to talk about articles, take for example the article ]. Since notability is an opinion, do you want editors removing sentences from that article because of a personal opinion that the information is not notable, and then citing NNC to back them up? And the NNC redirect doesn't even make sense now. It stands for '''N'''otability guidelines do '''n'''ot directly limit article '''c'''ontent. --] (]) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::* Suggesting the exact same thing you've been pushing for is not a compromise. Again, I've stated why there is a consensus for treating things with appropriate levels of detail, and why it's important that we do. We want to keep an article on topic and promote readability, just to name a few things. Your argument amounts to "well, I can't prove that it's a good idea to remove it, and I can't even prove there's a consensus to remove it. But it doesn't belong here." I'm open to hearing where else it belongs. But this principle against excess or disproportionate detail has very little to do with ]. This guideline has been at ] in some shape or form for the good part of a year probably because most people think it basically fits here. ] (]) 17:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::* Suggesting the exact same thing you've been pushing for is not a compromise. Again, I've stated why there is a consensus for treating things with appropriate levels of detail, and why it's important that we do. We want to keep an article on topic and promote readability, just to name a few things. Your argument amounts to "well, I can't prove that it's a good idea to remove it, and I can't even prove there's a consensus to remove it. But it doesn't belong here." I'm open to hearing where else it belongs. But this principle against excess or disproportionate detail has very little to do with ]. This guideline has been at ] in some shape or form for the good part of a year probably because most people think it basically fits here. ] (]) 17:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Revision as of 15:14, 7 December 2008

Shortcuts
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

Archives

Archive 1 is related to the page now moved to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Arguments.


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Relevance

Notability a hostage to quantification not qualification

I've been noticing a small but from my perspective disturbing trend of Baltic (and I'm sure it happens elsewhere) articles being nominated for deletion because companies are not big enough, there aren't "enough" Google matches in English, etc. This frankly kills any initiative to develop any such articles and indirectly perpetuates us going back to the same old never ending conflicts over the presentation of the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe. It would be nice to work on something less significant, but not if everything is going to be subject to Baltic = obscure = delete. (Or fill in your other geography that is a bit off the beaten path.) I know all about the WP:ALPHABETSOUP, so in this one little corner can we please leave WP:JARGON out of the conversation? Thanks in advance. -PētersV (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, the role of an encyclopedia is to fill in the obscure corners, not to replicate—i.e., perpetuate—the emptiness of culturally biased obscurity. -PētersV (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Notability is only affected by language in how much we take reliable sources in other languages - which should be "no effect", presuming that steps have been made to help translate foreign sources. Yes, it's en.wiki, and if the only sources are in a different language and no attempt to show translation is made, it's hard to verify, but foreign sources alongside English ones should be ok, both for validity and for notability. --MASEM 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
If people are ignoring foreign sources when looking at notability, that's the fault of editors, not policy. Admittedly, this is a difficult thing to do. But there's no systemic bias in notability. There's a volunteer bias, with the kind of wikipedians we have now. That's something we solve by getting more Wikipedians from all cultures / language groups / etc. ... If people are being rough on you for non-English material, I hope you can bring it to the attention of deletion reviewers, or what not. Or bring it here. Sometimes it's important to have a guideline that states the obvious. Randomran (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Gavin. We have the...
  • Generally "weak keep" discussion on MicroTik, apparently we only care about juggernaut multinationals.
  • There was the speedy deletion of Harald Siiak by Amused Response although four editors protested.
  • There was the speedy deletion of Category: Estonian choirs. This would be a great area to get author involvement to create a whole category of articles. Singing choirs and dancing ensembles are the cultural heart and soul in all three Baltic states. The only way we can foster teamwork to create articles in the Baltic space is to put out the skeletons and encourage editors to fill them in. Everyone has access to slightly different sources.
  • There was also a speedy deletion recently regarding an Estonian choir, but it escapes me at the moment.
Unfortunately to not create a double standard one must, at least, indulge that more obscure articles need to be allowed an opportunity to grow in the open. These are not speedy deletes on article discussing the typeface used in imprinting hockey pucks.-PētersV (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You are not alone. Deletionists seem to think that Singaporean = non-notable. As a result, Singapore-related articles are often inappropriately AFDed or even speedied. The deletion processes are systemically biased. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I sympathise with the frustration expressed here. The problem is that over 90% of articles listed at WP:AfD really are rubbish, so few people apart from ideological deletionists (grrRRR!) and the editors of the threatened articles pay any attention. However if you have 2-4 WP:RS supporting notability, defend these articles vigorously. Some tactics:
Many thanks for your constructive suggestions and sharing your experiences. :-) —PētersV (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I really love what Philcha and Randomran are saying here. Here's an ongoing deletion review that was caused by a 2nd AfD that should have never taken place if merely the deletionist in question would have allowed improvement of the article. The original article in question was "speedy deleted" for lack of credible sources to establish notability after being listed here on Misplaced Pages for over two years and having endured an AfD before. When the sources were added during the 2nd AfD, the admin would delete them and eventually block them, including a link on the Univesity of Texas, San Antonio's list of notable alumni here on Misplaced Pages (Misplaced Pages approved pages should be a credible source, especially from the University of Texas school system) where the notability of the person (article in question) was clearly established by the university. Not to mention the Misplaced Pages notability guidelines specifically states notability is not temporary . Furthermore, the article in question is about a photographer and author of three photography books, Misplaced Pages states that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." qualifies them for notability. Gomez's books are cited in at least three other books and in independent periodical articles. Not to mention, the first book has 48 reviews on Amazon.com alone. When the article survived the first AfD, only one book was authored at the time. The time used to battle the 2nd AfD would be better spent to improve the article instead of wasting everyones time in these AfD's and future deletion reviews. The "notability" standard in Misplaced Pages is faulty perhaps because sociological factors that cause one editor to perceive one meaning and another editor to perceive another meaning. Perhaps a clear, bullet-style checklist in the format that Philcha did above could be a solution to help reduce misinterpretations. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) 8 minutes from creation to non-notability here. "Sociological" factors (mostly Anglo-culture still reigns supreme, better stated as I haven't heard of it so no one else cares either, QED) would be the issue, precisely. Notability has been defined in such a way to allow for deletion of spurious articles, whether on made-up-topics or someone's completely non-notable aunt Sarah. Unfortunately, this quantification-based means for determining "notability" in that regard works ONLY for Anglo-cultural items, not for anything else, where it's simply a bludgeon indiscriminately applied by people who think they are contributing by deleting. -PētersV (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NNC again

Since the previous thread on this was archived, I'm bringing it up again. The current NNC section needs to be changed. I would prefer it look like this:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content Notability guidelines give guidance on whether the community is likely to agree that a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ). Information within an article is not required to meet any notability guideline (with the exception of lists of people); instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policies that information must be verifiable and presented in a neutral fashion, and the guideline advising the citation of reliable sources.

And I've just changed it to that. I don't think any text about "undue weight" belongs in WP:N. WP:N is about article topics and potential article topics, not information within an article. Misplaced Pages has several policies having to do with information within an article (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP), but WP:N is not one of them. Information in an article does not have to be "notable" to remain in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I feel uncomfortable with the proposal in the first instance, as I am not sure what benefit it has from the perspective of writing an encyclopedic article about a particular topic, as the staying focused is an important editorial consideration.
    In reality, I think WP:N does partially restrict the content of articles, in the sense that if a topic is notable, then going "off-topic" by including content that is only remotely related to the subject matter is not in the spirit of the guideline. For instance, an article like Jedi was used as a coatrack for lots of topics that are only remotely related, such as Dark Nest, but these have since been removed.
    I don't think we should go back to allowing articles to becoming dumping grounds for "off-topic" content, and somehow I think this change needs to be reverted or ammended. However, if Pixelface can give examples of articles where he thinks this change may be of benefit, I am open to conisideration.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I do think that there are two general consensuses here which are not actually mutually exclusive. Firstly, it is extremely clear that the notability (used from henceforth to also include the sub-guidelines) guidelines apply only as standards for inclusion or exclusion of article length and depth content. On the other hand, though, you are right - there is also I feel a consensus that content within an article should be, in some measure, notable. This works hand-in-hand with WP:WEIGHT, as the more notable a viewpoint, the more coverage it should receive.
    • The problem with WP:N has always been that it applies only for articles, and clearly for content within articles a different measure of notability is needed. I personally advocate 'notability requirements by length' - how notable something should (collectively, if part of a larger subject) be for a brief mention, for a more detailed mention, for a stub level article, for a section within an article, or for an article. Each of these categories seems to me to be already established to be a rough guideline which people seem to use to make editing decisions. However, this would require major rewriting work of the Notability guidelines, and by definition would also require cross-over with MoS standards for articles (as effectively this would also work towards a concept of "minimum content" - that an article about a subject of certain notability would then hence be expected to have). LinaMishima (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and revert this change. I don't think there's a consensus for it, but you're welcome to make the argument until we do. NNC talks about the appropriate weight of factual information, which really doesn't belong in WP:NPOV. You also removed the very common sense principle that Misplaced Pages is for encyclopedic summaries, not exhaustive details. I think there may be support for rephrasing and clarifying the section, but not for rewriting it the way you have. Randomran (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah well I've just removed the stuff about undue weight, because it does not belong in a guideline about the notability of article topics. It doesn't belong in WP:NPOV? That's where all the stuff about "undue weight" came from. You know this. I've reverted the NNC section to the version from March 15 before Dorftrottel edited it. I suggest you ask Marskell if he meant information in an article needs to be notable when he changed NPOV to say "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." The phrase "encyclopedic summaries" is useless, since so many people have so many different ideas about how long "encyclopedic summaries" should be.
I don't think the ArbCom is in the policy-making or guideline-making business. If those 5 arbitrators who supported the principle "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details" four years ago (Fred Bauder, Jdforrester, The Epopt, Jwrosenzweig, Raul654) are still around, I think it would be better if we asked them what they meant, and if what they said had anything to do with notability. This guideline didn't even exist four years ago. I suggest you ask them yourself, since you're the one who wants this guideline to quote that four year old ArbCom principle. When they said an article is not a "complete exposition of all possible details", did they mean that information in an article needs to be notable? I don't think so. But go ahead and ask them. --Pixelface (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm really not sure what hiding them or scrubbing them is supposed to accomplish. The rules are good, represent consensus, and a common sense way of handling excessive detail. Randomran (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaving text in another policy is not "hiding" it it any sense of the word. And I seriously question whether there was consensus for Marksell to change NPOV like that in the first place. If you want to remove "excessive detail" from an article, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. But don't say information has to be "notable" to be in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I respectfully disagree with your opinion, and you have the right to hold it. But you're repeating yourself, and I'm not sure what else to say without repeating myself either. Perhaps you might accomplish more by suggesting a compromise. Randomran (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. How about I want to revert the NNC section to the version that existed before an indefinitely blocked user added the link to WP:UNDUE, because "undue weight" has nothing to do with notability? If information has to be "notable" to be in an article, what's to stop someone from removing anything they personally deem "non-notable" from 4X? Why should this guideline recommend such a thing? --Pixelface (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • One obvious reason is that if a topic is notable, then adding content that is "off-topic" or only remotely related to the subject matter of the article is not in the spirit of the guideline. You have not answered this point which I made earlier in this discussion, but it still needs to be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Gavin, I'm 99% certain that the spirit of this guideline is that it recommends that a thing be "notable" before an editor creates an article about that thing. Because various inclusion guidelines were created before this guideline. Because "non-notable" was often used as a reason to delete in deletion debates. "Off-topic" content != "non-notable" content. Did you still want examples of why I think reverting NNC to the version that existed March 15 before an indefinitely blocked user changed NNC is a good idea? For one, all the stuff about undue weight was added by an indefinitely blocked user. If you want to talk about articles, take for example the article Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club. Since notability is an opinion, do you want editors removing sentences from that article because of a personal opinion that the information is not notable, and then citing NNC to back them up? And the NNC redirect doesn't even make sense now. It stands for Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. --Pixelface (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggesting the exact same thing you've been pushing for is not a compromise. Again, I've stated why there is a consensus for treating things with appropriate levels of detail, and why it's important that we do. We want to keep an article on topic and promote readability, just to name a few things. Your argument amounts to "well, I can't prove that it's a good idea to remove it, and I can't even prove there's a consensus to remove it. But it doesn't belong here." I'm open to hearing where else it belongs. But this principle against excess or disproportionate detail has very little to do with neutrality or points of view. This guideline has been at WP:N in some shape or form for the good part of a year probably because most people think it basically fits here. Randomran (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Graysons

The Graysons, a failed tv show proposal, has been nominated for deletion. More editor opinion is greatly appreciated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What's interesting here is that the article, by any standard, passes WP:N between and , as well as . If this article is deleted despite that, it seems to me to speak to a fundamental problem with the basic definition of notability here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Does notability have to be in the real-world?

I'm wondering about the article Bruenor Battlehammer. One user (User:Gavin.collins argues that the article's notability is not established because quote "What is required is real-world content that provides context, analysis or criticism cited from reliable secondary source as evidence of notability. "

The sources in the article provide references for in-universe material, but they are still reliable secondary sources. Is there anything in the notability guidelines saying that reliable secondary sources also have to provide real-world content to establish notability? Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If they provide references for in-universe material, they are still primary, though third-party sources, since they are still talking about the work itself. That's why notability is based on secondary sources - what is the out-of-universe information about the topic at hand? --MASEM 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The specific instance regards citations for the following lines: "During their efforts to regain this lost dwarven stronghold, Bruenor slays the shadow dragon Shimmergloom." and "Bruenor is the adoptive father of Catti-brie and Wulfgar, King of Mithral Hall, friend to Drizzt" They are both referenced with reliable secondary sources (they aren't primary), even though they both describe in-universe text.
The article, at this time, contains very little out-of-universe information, but that's a problem that needs to be dealt with by an {{in-universe}} tag and cleanup, rather than a {{notability}} tag and cleanup, right? Shouldn't the reliable secondary sources establish notability, even if they're in-universe? -Drilnoth (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If that's what the source is saying, they are still primary. The primary/secondary consideration is how the topic is dealt with, and if the reference still talks about the topic in-universe, it is primary. It is a third-person source, however. --MASEM 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MASEM, I think you should clarify your reasoning on primary and secondary sources. Taking an "in universe" perspective does not automatically make a source primary. For example much academic literary criticsm is "in universe" (e.g. whether Hamlet had an Oedipus complex, or whether Macbeth made his own decisions or was under his wife's thumb).
With computer games, I'd regard the manuals, written by technical writers and based on info gained from the developers and from playing beta versions, as secondary sources. It's more difficult with non-computer games that offer similar gameplay, since for non-computer games it's probably true to say that the manual is the game. For non-computer games I'd only be confident that sources independent of the game's publisher are secondary sources, and material from the publisher would have to be looked at case-by-case.
Back to Drilnoth's question about notability, on a common-sense basis I'd say that "in universe" information does not establish notability. The issue is whether there's good evidence that people independent of the developers consider the game worthy of notice. Types of evidence include: awards by independent organisations; favourable reviews, preferably reviews that comment on distinctive aspects of the game (game reviews have ot be treated with caution, as many are too bland or even flattering); sales figures, if you can get them ("X was the 4th fastest selling game of genre Y in 2008"); comments by other developers that game X influenced them; etc. --Philcha (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Repeating what happens in a work of a fiction without any additional commentary generates a primary source (describing everything in-universe), even if it does mean pulling several unrelated events together but without speuclation. Without knowing the work, the example sentence that you gave: "During their efforts to regain this lost dwarven stronghold, Bruenor slays the shadow dragon Shimmergloom." reads like a primary source even if third-party. Manuals for games (board or computer or otherwise) describe the in-universe aspects of the fiction part of the game, and thus are primary sources. Secondary sources are though categorized as "one step removed" - some type of analysis or critique on the work. That can be only in-universe, pretty much describing the example "Hamlet having an Oedipus complex" since that's not directly inferred by the original work. Now, it probably can be possible to write an article using third-party, secondary sources that only analysis the work in-universe, but the resulting article would look pretty much like an essay about the character. That said, if you can find enough third-party, secondary sources of that type, there's a good likelihood that you can get a similar source that connects the topic to an out-of-universe or real world aspect - otherwise why would people go to the effort to produce the third-party secondary in-universe sources anyway? --MASEM 14:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I happen to personally think this is a WP:PLOT issue, where we require information about impact and reception, since we're not just an exposition of all kinds of in-universe detail. But a lot of people lump this in with notability, because that's what reliable secondary sources are supposed to provide: a criticism/analysis of the primary source. (It's the same reason why a re-print of a press-release in another source isn't enough for notability.) Either way, yeah you're gonna need some real-world context for the article to be suitable for Misplaced Pages. Randomran (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the article needs more real-world context; I'm not questioning that. I'm just wondering how the guidelines work. The article being discussed fails WP:PLOT at this time but, if the article had more unreferenced real-world information, would references in the in-universe text establish notability? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say no. It might be helpful to read this discussion. Notability isn't just a question of the right sources -- the source are supposed to serve a purpose. One purpose of those sources is to establish why the topic is significant. So it's not just about finding a bare mention at a specific kind of source. It's about finding a source that can say "this is one of the best/worst examples of that" or "this can be compared to the ongoing debate on the free market" -- something that goes into its impact. It's not like there's a high threshold, proving that this is a matter of life and death to prove it's important. But right now, what you have doesn't explain *why* it's important. That's what out-of-universe information is supposed to give you. Randomran (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that clears up the issue. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Coverage in paper encyclopedias

In view of this AFD, I wonder if we should add the following line to this guideline:

Anything which is the subject of an article in a general purpose paper encyclopedia is notable.

Misplaced Pages's goal is to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, and deleting subjects which are covered in the very works Misplaced Pages aspires to surpass in terms of comprehensiveness is antithetical to that goal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I wouldn't confine it to paper, as many top-end encyclopedias have CD / DVD and Web versions. OTOH we'd need some wording to restrict this to top-end encyclopedias, and to exclude Wiki-clones. --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's make sure this means any reputable printed encyclopedia in any language. (The argument over Soviet propaganda encyclopedias being a separate topic.) -PētersV (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This needs to be really worded carefully. I know what the OP means about "general purpose" encyclopedia, but people will find a way to twist this to state that (imaginary) "The Sci-Fi Show Encyclopedia" is "general" since it doesn't cover any specific show. I would almost argue that there's a highly explicit white list, which would include Britanica, Encarta, and other top encyclopedias in other languages, but getting on this white list requires discussion. If not on the list, it's not considered "general encyclopedia" for purposes of this.
Now, to work this in better, I would state that coverage in a "general encyclopedia" ( a tertiary source) is pretty guarenteed to have secondary coverage by the general encyclopedia. So while for purposes of notability discussion "covered by a general paper encyclopedia" is good enough to keep, editors should be strongly encouraged to seek out the cited secondary sources, in addition to others. In other words, we are still meeting the GNG, but being the only case where the existence of a reliable tertiary source is a presumption of the existence of secondary sources that immediately does not meet the GNG. --MASEM 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
For general encyclopedias, I would want to limit and examine the encylopedias carefully first, and generally qualify the types of articles we will accept. We certainly do not want to say that anything even mentioned in passing in such an encyclopedia is notable. But for the major encyclopedias, we would probably want to accept full articles, and in some cases subsidiary articles. I think this would go for selective national biographical dictionaries also. When we get to the level of specialised encyclopedias, we'd have to examine them carefully to see if the entries genenrally meet our standards--many of them are indeed just directories. and will be reliable sources, but not by themseleves show notability in the sense of the General Notablity Gtuideline.
Good point about specialist encyclopedias - I have a science fiction encyclopedia edited by a couple of well-known SF authors / editors.
A whitelist is a reasonable idea if it's implemented well. Any guideline that requires or implies use of a whitelist should link to the whitelist and also to a page for whitelist nominations, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
"We certainly do not want to say that anything even mentioned in passing in such an encyclopedia is notable" is more complicated. Sometimes encyclopedia editors, like other sources, assume that some standard concept or whatever is well-known to their expected readership - a mistake WP editors also sometimes make. In such cases it may still be possible to assemble something useful from snippets about X in articles X, Y, and Z from the same encyclopedia, e.g. "X was the script-writer for SF movie A, B and C". --Philcha (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable entries on a disambiguation page

I am not sure if this is a good place to bring this issue or not. The Pushkin (disambiguation) lists two Pushkins who dont have Misplaced Pages articles (yet). They aparently have both recieved the Hero of the Soviet Union award which would seem to indicate that they might be notable - however they are not mentioned in the Hero of the Soviet Union article either. Should their names be removed from the disambiguation page as rather pointless entries since we have no information about them to lead a reader to? -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably better at WP:D, but given this advice: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader.", if you can't make the usable bluelink, it probably should not be included. So, presuming the Hero of the Soviet Union article is notable, then it is reasonable that at worst, disamb or redirects of each recipient is pointed to it, unless the recipient is notable, then it can have an article. --MASEM 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If there's a chance that it will become a blue link, even as a redirect to an article that briefly discusses the person, include it. That way incoming links intending that person can be fixed. --NE2 06:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm no deletionist, but I think we may have to delete these. DAB pages are not directly subject to WP:V, WP:RS or WP:N. Leaving items on DAB pages that do not point to articles that meet the normal criteria is a loophole for POV-pushers. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In what way? I can't see how this could be POV pushing. --MASEM 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The standard should be the same as for most list articles: if they are not already articles, the links must clearly and evidently qualify for WP articles & give enough information to show it--and, if you've done that much checking, it might be just a easy to start a stub article. DGG (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Disambigs should follow the same reasoning we use redirection for topics that don't have their own individual articles but are covered as part of a larger topic. At some point, if you create a list of non-notable elements for support of a notable topic, and then create redirects to each element to help with search, you are eventually bound to come into a naming conflict and end up at a disamb. page, thus adding that name to that page is certainly reasonable. I'd be careful with hatnotes if there is no disambig page for a common term, though the same idea applies. --MASEM 14:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right about links to well-sourced sections of articles. I was thinking of POV-pushers adding DAB links to e.g. titles previously deleted at AfD and adding POV-pushing comments, e.g. "Snot-nose Q. Slimeball - the greatest rock drummer of all time". --Philcha (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this a case where we'd be guided by WP:BIO anyway? We don't include every single person in a list. By the same token, NNC says we don't really cover exhaustive detail. I don't know enough about the Pushkins to really make a fair opinion, and you don't necessarily need a blue link to be included in a list of some kind. So really, this is one of those many areas where we defer to a consensus. Randomran (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Troubled

I recently attempted to look up information on Fabio da Silva, a football/soccer player with Manchester United. I wanted to know what position he played. We had no article on him, and after looking, I saw that the article was deleted as he was non-notable. Since he obviously passed WP:N (I have found multiple sources easily), I recreated the article, and had it re-speedied. After some poking about, the issue was that, because he has not yet made an appearance for Manchester United (despite being signed, collecting a paycheck, having a squad number, and being listed on Man U's website as a player in their first squad) he fails WP:ATHLETE, which has been grounds to shoot down attempts to recreate the article. I brought it to DRV, and had the DRV speedy closed as, in the closer's words, "offensive."

There are a number of issues here that I find troubling.

  1. WP:ATHLETE is being used to trump WP:N.
  2. Mechanical reasoning is being used to trump consideration of product - this is demonstrably a notable topic about which we can provide accurate information, but because of a culture of treating notability requirements as checklists to be addressed automatically, we have no good mechanism for thinking through on anything other than a mechanical level.
  3. The overall system fails in a way where I am unable to have a sustained discussion of the issue anywhere - the article was re-speedied with a "take it to DRV" message, and then the DRV was speedy closed. I am an experienced enough admin to know how to push the issue further, but had I actually been a regular reader, this would have been extremely problematic.

This is, to be honest, one of the most distressing things I've come across in my years as Misplaced Pages - a clearly notable article is being persistently deleted because of mechanical thinking that does not take product into account, and none of the mechanisms to fix such errors are being allowed to work. For a reader or inexperienced user, this is the sort of thing that would drive them away from the project, and with good reason. Me, it just pisses off.

We need to think about the root causes of this - root causes that, I think, begin in the drive to create notability requirements that "cannot be gamed," which is borne of a mindset that treats contributors who advocate inclusion of content as the enemy.

What can we do to reform these guidelines so that disasters like this don't happen? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably related to the WP:N AFD and the relationship between GNG and SNGs. We're still waiting for the third-party comments on it, but my take from the comments is that SNGs should not weaken the GNG but can play higher restrictions on it. Case in point is that most people could probably meet the GNG with effort, but we aim to make sure to avoid indiscriminate info by requiring a larger degree of why people are important.
Now, in this specific case, it sounds strictly like a problem with ATHLETE, in that either they are being too robotic to the process, or, to their credit, they know from past experience that the case of da Silva (a signed player that has yet to play a game) may lead to too many non-notable articles or the like. Either way, the argument is not one that can be addressed by WP:N - it's how those that maintain the ATHLETE-related articles do it. (that is, WP:N as a deletion relation was never the case, it was only ATHLETE). --MASEM 15:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Addendum, I note that ATHLETE (part of BIO) leads off with "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Misplaced Pages:Notability." Clearly in this case, I read that ATHLETE should not be taken as strictly as it was. Again, I think the guidelines are right, but we have people thinking in the wrong way about this. --MASEM 15:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I mean, the guidelines provide good guidance. But I think there is a mentality of trying to render deletion debates automatic where possible - it's something that's clearly come up in debating the fiction notability guideline. The desire is for something that will prevent arguments at AfD. That seems to me to be a deeply problematic approach, as we see here, where the desire to not discuss something is preventing the correction of a rather serious error. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've commented on the DRV closing admin page, but one strong suggestion is to provide the sources you say are there are notable. I've checked the deleted da Silva page and there's only one source, so you've not shown the GNG passing, which is why ATHLETE is being assumed. If you can fill it up with at least a couple more references, you'll have a better argument as why it's the GNG that is met even if ATHLETE is not. --MASEM 15:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Lists of people