![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | → | Archive 75 |
Hi. I have a question regarding trivial mentions and a self-published source on an article I am considering nominating for deletion. I don't want to waste other users' time nominating unless I am certain my interpretations are right. Would I be ok to post specific information here with a view to getting feedback, or is this noticeboard only for general discussion? Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks. The article in question is William Dickson (Falklands), it is the biography of an early settler of the Falkland Islands, who was present at the British takeover of the islands in 1833. Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There are probably at least 10 valid sources which mention him similarly to the following example (taken from The Falklands Story 1592-1982, by Mary Cawkill):
Mention 1
"A flagstaff was put up at the house of Vernet's storekeeper, William Dickson, who in the absence of Brisbane was the senior British resident on the islands, and the Union Jack hoisted." p.36
Mention 2
"It was this [limiting of the gaucho's freedom to catch wild cattle], not the payment by Brisbane to them in paper money instead of silver, as the British government was to allege [...] that sparked off the gaucho eruption which, on 26th August 1833, resulted in the deaths of Brisbane, the storekeeper Dickson, the capataz of gauchos, an Argentinean and a German trader in a massacre which would become known as the Port Louis murders." p.39
There are slight variations in the sources, some mention his Irish birthplace or nationality, some specify that he was instructed to raise the Union Jack when boats arrived, and some call him a leading citizen. None are more than 2 sentences.
Is this type of mention "trivial" and therefore no good for establishing notability? Does the volume of sources make any difference (like I say, I reckon I could put nearly 10 similarly worded texts as references)? Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There is one source that gives a much bigger mention of Dickson. The Dictionary of Falkland Biography article on him, written by David Tatham, a diplomat and former governor of the Falklands. It does not mention anything we could really call notable, beyond what is mentioned above, but there are more details of his life spread over 2 paragraphs, so I think it is fair to say he has significant coverage in this source.
The source concerns me because it is self-published, and as I understand it, self-published sources are not ideal for establishing notability. Tatham is not a historian and it appears to be his only published work, furthermore, a significant number of the entries are of people who would not meet the criteria for notability in wikipedia.
Should this source count for establishing notability? Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Part of the problem we have here is that we have Boynamedsue continually insisting that unless we all do exactly what he says, when he says it, he will try to get the article deleted. This is distinctly unhelpful, particularly when coupled with the forum shopping, with non-neutral or inaccurate comments.
As I noted at one of the other places where this has been raised, I do not accept that Tatham is a self-published source within the spirit of WP:SPS. Kahastok talk 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to comment at the article, which I think is what this is really about. North8000 ( talk) 17:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:SUSTAINED is a bit vague. If a website gets a lot of sudden coverage mentioning it was shut down, and the only other mention it ever got was when they tried in the past to shut it down for piracy, is that notable? Wikipedia:Notability (web) also mentions Wikipedia:PERMASTUB. If the article will never have anything possible written in it other than something brief, since there is nothing to expand it with, should it exist? Dream Focus 00:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:SUSTAINED seems to be a bit rough.
Sentence | text | comment |
---|---|---|
1 | Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. | Nonsense? What is it supposed to mean? Just cut it? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
2 | Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". | Belongs in an essay? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
3 | Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. | True, tending to a truism. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
4 | However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. | Finally, the meat! What is "sustained"? Fresh coverage at 1 month? 6 months? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
5 | New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION. | Comment on "new companies" belongs in WP:CORP. Comment on "future events" belongs at WP:Notability (events)#Future events, or the essay WP:Future event. This sentence is a random digression when the text is still begging: What is "sustained"? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
6 | If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. | A brief summary of WP:BIO1E and WP:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
I call the section mostly bloat, and think it should be refocused to say what "sustained" means. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Daniela Tablante; born 12 December 1995 is a Venezuelan and Spanish television host, producer, and actress who currently works in the media in the United States of America.
Tablante started her career as a news reporter in Univision Orlando, where she delivered daily news, politics and stories that impacted the hispanic community . Afterwards she hosted the morning show, Despierta Orlando, where she spoke about Central Florida public events, weather and highlights of the main news shows of the day. Also, she broadcasted daily news stories in one of the main Spanish radio stations in the Orlando area, Salsa 98.1.
Daniela got her first degree in Mass Communications in Lindenwood University in St Charles, Missouri before working in Orlando's television and radio station. Right after she graduated, she was selected to work on an internship in NBC-affiliated television station KSDK in the city of St. Louis.
After graduating from college and working for Univision Orlando for a year, Tablante decided to pursue her graduate education in the city of Miami where she graduated for the second time with a masters degree in Mass Communications and Media Business with a mention in Hispanic media from Florida International University. While she was studying her masters, Tablante worked in the scientific and media research department of the university and also she was simultaneously studying acting in Miami Dade College.
On Tablante’s last semester of graduate school, she started to film an independent documentary which is now streaming on Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV.
In the last years, Daniela Tablante has worked as a freelance reporter for Univision and Azteca of SouthWest Florida. Also, she has been involved in the production of several film and documentary projects in the United States and Mexico.
In 2018, she registered her company in the state of Florida, Daniela Tablante Communications LLC where she serves as CEO and Creative Director. Also that year, she participated on her first runway as a model of Miami Swim Week fashion show Descalzos. Next year, she walked the runway of Miami Swim Week for Art Hearts Fashion, a fashion production company that owns some of the biggest shows of Miami Swim Week. In 2019, Tablante walked the runway for brands like Carmen Steffens. Also she participated in her first New York Fashion Week later that year where she walked the runway for Carmen Steffens for the second time and other fashion brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinogang ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Please weigh in: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software#Software_notability_guidelines. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Would I be correct in assuming that in order for a topic to be notable, reliable sources need to cover the topic in its entirety? For example, at Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies_related_questions I argued that while topics like "Superstition in Iran" and "Superstition in Pakistan" were clearly notable in their own right, we could not use sources for those topics to establish the notability of "Superstition in Muslim societies". For that we'd actually need a source that ties in superstitions in various Muslim countries together. Is my understanding correct? VR talk 04:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability Agenda for Football (Soccer) Match Official (Referees) where this subject is now being discussed. A formal RfC has been suggested, but not yet drafted much less opened. Input from interested editors would be welcome. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 16:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There are so many double standards, contradictions, loopholes and gaming that being "notable" can either be p-easy to gain in the case of sports or Iranian villages or almost impossible when it comes to cryptocurrencies or fictional characters. I have had so many "last straws" for Wikipedia so often that I don't bother in most cases, but AFD has p-ed me off more than usual. Wikipedia's 20 year test is coming up soon, and people and donators will soon write more about the big gaps of knowledge deleted by Wikipedia. Second generation wikis that are more inclusionist will soon overtake Wikipedia (even Wikimedia's own Wikidata has more coverage), and Wikipedia will be considered non notable by future encyclopedists. 94.175.6.205 ( talk) 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(But what other system could succeed? A professionally-run online outfit like Encarta or Britannica? With a fiftieth of Wikipedia's content, they're all in the dustbin. A strictly moderated site with editorial oversight curated by "experts," as with Citizendium? That effort's been moribund for a decade, with less than a ten-thousandth Wikipedia's content. Wikipedia probably won't be any more eternal than Britannica was, but what's going to replace it isn't going to be Same-As-WP-Only-With-Rules-I-Like.) Ravenswing 05:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Original poster here, I think my ideas are right. Cryptocurrencies are one of the most controversial topics in the field of finance and have been linked to many crimes and scams even threating to destroy twitter. But they also changed peoples riches and many people have become millionaires and many countries like Venezuela have been improved by having cryptocurrency. The topic deserves to be notable and documented. Fictional characters also influence our lives by giving people common stories and references to share, so should be notable through that way. The notability debate has gone on for too long, too many Wikipedians have left the project after having all their articles destroyed by deletionism. I am an ex Wikipedian my self who left years ago but still sometimes makes a few edits. But no matter what happens to Wikipedia, inclusionism will always win in the end because people want to know and if Wikipedia won't provide it, somewhere else will. 94.175.6.205 ( talk) 12:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd certainly make a bunch of changes if I were appointed Dictator of Wikipedia. But I'm not, nor going to be. Not even Jimbo's that, these days. I put in my two cents' worth, and there are notability guidelines out there I'm proud to have created. And beyond that, I live with the compromises, and accept that a lot of editors don't agree with me on this or that. If I couldn't accept that, I'd walk. But beyond that? I figure on taking the chance that there are only a handful of people butthurt enough to flip Wikipedia the bird because their pet obscure athlete or ephemeral minor porn star or -- say -- fly-by-night cryptocurrency that no one ever wrote a news piece about don't have an article. Ravenswing 05:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not really interested in cryptocurrencies and fictional characters, but I must say, that I understand the IP and I agree that the Notability policy is the Achilles hell of Wikipedia. I mean for instance my favourite football club is deemed not notable, my favourite band is deemed not notable etc. (I have no personal connection to the any of them of course) and many local topics I would be interested in to read also. I find it very sad that a huge part of human knowledge is not available to the users. I do not want to sound pathetic but I believe, that most posters here do not have a slightest clue, how it is, when the topics you are most interested in are not allowed to be included in the encyclopedia. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 09:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know i’m setting up my own wiki to cover encyclopedic topics discriminated against by the notability policy. Deletionists will be treated the same as vandals on this wiki. I’ve noticed other wikis do the same. Eventually the inclusionist wikis will win out in terms of coverage and deletionist wikis will be forgotten about. People have been arguing about notability for over 15 years, admit it is a failed and discriminatory policy. 94.175.6.205 ( talk) 10:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Basically COI editing combined with notable sources ala SEO but for notability. This will happen as new generations of notability policy aware COI editors work in conjunction with the media to get get their articles notability optimized on Wikipedia to avoid deletion. I could easily become "notable" enough with a few thousand dollars and do multiple events to get round the ONEEVENT policy. 77.96.44.212 ( talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that the far more common way to buy their way into Wikipedia is to hire a wiki-savvy undeclared paid editor. Our badly written guidelines that define pretty much every editor as a wp:COI prevent the focus that it will take to fix that, and making life hell for the rare ones who declare makes the undeclared problem much worse. North8000 ( talk) 01:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of topics that are popular with kids but do not have articles as the systemic bias of adults not writing as many sources about them (apart from marketing of course) and that the target audience is not yet old enough to edit Wikipedia competently. Draft:Gacha Life seems to be stuck in this limbo as it really is a phenomenon popular with younger audiences. I'm out of the target demographic but I can see the problems that Wikipedia has in this area. The only way out seems to be if such subjects get an unexpected adult following (My Little Pony and Thomas the Tank Engine being the well known examples), or waiting until the target audience grows up and write about them from a nostalgia perspective. Baby Shark only became notable because it got 7 billion views from repeated watching on apps, it would be just another kids song otherwise. 2A01:4C8:72:A70B:24E0:199A:3079:4118 ( talk) 18:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Companies and organizations; and biography articles are especially subject to notability argument. Although WP:NCORP currently places stronger emphasis on quality of sources, the guidelines only define the two extremes of "a passing mention" as trivial; and and a reliably published book written entirely on the history of IBM on the very extreme end of "significant coverage". To better resist gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals; and connected contributors, it would be very useful to have the shades in between better defined.
Presently, NORG requires multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary coverage with one of the sources passing broad circulation, and at the absolute minimum, one of it must be national, regional or international. This is often read as a page or two in daily regional paper, plus a cluster of local alternative weekly coverage. This had lead to proliferation of articles about neighborhood restaurants, event venues, book stores and such being ruled "notable", because of a one page coverage in the regional daily paper about something that happened at the place at one point, plus a cluster of local press. How do we interpret notability building effect of "a page or two about the article subject person/organization/company" in a highly specialized books about the discipline (i.e. graffiti art) as opposed to the same amount of coverage in People's Magazine, or Reader's Digest?
WP:AUD could benefit from building consensus on what's considered "limited interest" coverage; as well as "regional coverage".
This AfD failed.
These were the sources used to argue SIRS and AUD requirements:
One of them was a book specializing in graffiti. I personally define things like this as relatively trivial coverage and "limited interest" because it is something you would only see if you specifically go looking for a book on the subject; and a specialized book that is dedicated to a narrowly defined book is bound to have more details about obscure subjects and organizations. Currently, WP:AUD offers no guidance on how to apply "broad audience" vs "limited audience" on highly specialized academic journals or books.
Graywalls ( talk) 10:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
So, the topic is borderline on GNG (does not meet it rigorously, but is borderline on the "common practice" GNG standard) and fails Ncorp. Structurally this makes Ncorp irrelevant in this case. Plus nobody argued that it met Ncorp so it's not pointing to needing a change in ncorp. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd assert that there are many fewer "surprising" results over any dislike of SIRS than from these other factors. Ravenswing 06:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
What WP:N is missing though is some equivalent to NORG's clarificarion that any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources
. Honestly, from my perspective the rest of NORG is only useful where it is restating what constitutes
independent coverage, while the explanation of
WP:NOTINHERITED that it offers does more harm than good IMO. SIRS really just provides a thoroughly spelled out, objective-sounding set of criteria that won't under any circumstances allow regurgitated press releases to count, while the requirement that each source capture all of the relevant criteria at once seems basically feckless in my view.
Newimpartial (
talk)
23:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Some sources are primary for certain kinds of information but independent for other kinds of information. This distinction should be highlighted somewhere.
e.g. YouTube and Twitter and Medium and Patreon are obviously self-published media, and can not be relied on for factual information. I mean, obviously.
However, from these same sources, statistical information such as number of channel/profile subscribers, video views, tweet likes etc are clearly reliable pieces of information coming from independent sources.
This has multiple use-cases, including citation of this information in general, and e.g. WP:ENTERTAINER lists "cult following" as one of the criteria. If an entertainer has an inordinate number of followers/subscribers, that may or may not be considered cult following, but it should be legitimate to use social media stats to make that argument. Remember, the whole notion of "cult" following is that it's not mainstream, and therefore unlikely to be covered in traditional RS. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for Comment. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As the title says, we have three separate pages with substantial overlap. The periodicals page has the WP:NNEWSPAPER shortcut but otherwise seems more focused on academic journals, which has its own page. The media page has more useful content for a newspaper, but also covers things like books (which have their own guideline). The periodicals page and academic journals page are both classified as essays, and the media page as an explanatory supplement, and the three have significant differences in their standards. I think that a substantial restructuring is likely called for, as it's confusing and detrimental to have forks like this. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The GNG currently contains some redundant language in these two bullet points:
- "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- "Sources" [1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. [2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
The point that sources can be in any language or medium is repeated, as well as the point that multiple publications from one author/organization count as one source (which is in both the footnote and the main text). The quality of prose here really needs to be higher, given that this is the central element of one of our core policies. Can we please rewrite it to remove the repetition? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I've started Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on NCRIC, feel free to join the discussion. Fram ( talk) 09:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Are there any special notability requirements for statutes (or laws)? I don't recall seeing them. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Adam Leszczyński has had a {{ notability}} tag applied to it by two editors, who dispute that the multiple sources and reviews cited in the article establish notability, but neither of them will open an AfD for it (see Talk:Adam Leszczyński). I would like to resolve the dispute so that the tag can be removed. I would open an AfD myself, but that would be closed as speedy keep since I would not be arguing for deletion. How to resolve this? Does the cleanup tag just stay up forever? ( t · c) buidhe 17:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
First, I would like to remind User:Buidhe one more time that if they bring a dispute to a notice board, they need to ping other users involved. I would not have been aware of this discussion if User:Masem hadn’t pinged me. This is like fifth or sixth time that Buidhe has done this. This practice is discourteous.
Second, yes, Masem and User:Postdlf have it exactly right. Tag is there to alert editors to needed improvements. Personally, I’d prefer if the article continued to exist on Wikipedia, but right now I simply don’t see notability established.
Third, Buidhe, you say there are “four full length book reviews”? What are they? In what outlet? Links please. Pretty much every academic historian publishes a book. It’s more or less a requirement for tenure. When the book is published, the book is reviewed in dedicated journals. Again, this happens with almost every academic historian. But having tenure is not sufficient for notability. Volunteer Marek 18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The notability tag that this dispute concerns was the wrong notability tag. As Leszczyński is described as being a professor, it should have been tagged {{ notability|academics}}, not {{ notability}}. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The elephant in the room for a big or big issue with a question or controversy on an issue that is obvious or that we all know about,[ [3]], but no one mentions or wants to discuss to resolve a notability dispute is "authority control." Sometimes we forget something very important. Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not set in stone and their content and interpretation have to evolve over time. In my humble opinion we would have to stop acting like robots robots with the rules of Wikipedia and use more common sense. If we act like robots, we better replace all Wikipedia administrators with bots that strictly enforce the rules and regulations. That if, without common sense. Lately I see a lot of notability disputes about authors where it is perfectly clear that their notability is obvious. Where it is clear and "there should be no question" is authority control. An authority check of an author with innumerable bibliographic IDs in a VIAF of the best National Libraries and International Universities in the world would have to be valid and be sufficient to demonstrate and resolve a dispute of notability. Many people, most of whom I include myself, where else we look to see the notoriety of an author is precisely in the control of authority. It is the place where, without a doubt, the notableness of an author is verified and verified and not in the sources. References and sources are very good at demonstrating the notability of an author when they do not have bibliographic IDs in an authority check or VIAF. That said, when ever, we see an author article with a wide authority ID control and we see the label on the article, that it is possible that the subject of the article does not meet the general guidelines of Wikipedia notability, it turns out ridiculous and we see that many times we act like headless chickens without any common sense. I think it is urgently necessary to include the "exception" in the notability policies and guidelines the "authority control".-- Sorginak ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I see this policy come up a lot in the context of requests for pages to be deleted. Perhaps it's time to specify what qualifies as a valid secondary source, since people seem to have different opinions about this. Or maybe relax the policy and allow certain kinds of primary sources. There really should be some ratio allowed (70/30?). It seems clear to me that simply relying on secondary sources results in failure to classify information correctly. This is especially the case with technology, where the best source of information is often the documentation which is written by the authors/programmers themselves. Avindra talk / contribs 21:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
For instance, a subject that uses 50 primary sources, and only 5 secondary sources is not subject to deletion because any percentage or ratio of its content is not supported by secondary sources. The only issue, from the perspective of assessing notability, is whether the five secondary sources treat the topic in substantive detail, and are reliable and independent (I am not saying that that ratio or percentage is ideal, just providing a weighted example to make a point; some content should not be supported by primary sources, e.g., self-serving claims, but that is not a notability concern).
For this example, the topic is notable because (as both Ravenswing and Masem talk about above) the five substantive, secondary, reliable and independent sources demonstrate that the world has taken note of the topic—and that's the end of the inquiry as far as notability (and deletion based on that doctrine's principles) is concerned. I do acknowledge, however, that at times an article may have so many citations to primary sources that it becomes difficult mechanically to find the (reliable, independent, substantively-treating) secondary sources in the mix, in order to properly make a notability assessment, but that still does not change the fact that such assessment of notability does not properly turn on how many primary sources are being cited in relation to secondary sources.
So, can you point to any examples of a topic not being allowed, deleted, or requested to be deleted, for notability reasons based upon the use of primary sources for its information, rather than based upon the presence, or not, of the rights types of secondary sources that, by their breadth of treatment, demonstrate the topic's recognition by the world? -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. the reason we can't "relax the policy and allow certain kinds of primary sources" is because we don't turn to the existence of secondary sources, and exclude primary sources, as evidence of notability, as some sort of arbitrary cutoff. Rather, the nature of what a primary source is excludes it by logical necessity; a person/entity's writing about themselves, for example, is simply not evidence of the world taking note of a subject, and yet that precept is what notability runs on.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 21:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)We have to "over-rely" on secondary sources, as we are all notable to people we know or employ us (and certainly ourselves). Note that it is notability we are talking about, bit facts about a notable person. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
MOS:N. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#MOS:N until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
GMX
ping!
23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Informal poll: would it be valuable to establish specific criteria for award entities? While I know that they're presently covered by NCORP, I'm thinking that it might be rare for an award entity to be written about, but there might be other reasons why one could be notable. For example, if an award ceremony were regularly televised somewhere and watched by N million people, or if entertainment news reported on that year's winners. On the other hand I could see that opening the door to a lot of fluffy award entities that wiggle their way onto some niche market's airwaves or some lesser entertainment site that is starved for content, but that could be a good reason to be specific about what qualifies. Anyhow, it's informal. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
So we are deciding on a new name for "God" I'm assuming because the name has been used for many different reasons? That question is just as silly as thinking or assuming any human would be so stupid to even think about changing the name of God. Let the Potsherds stride with the Potsherds of the earth CloverWhite ( talk) 10:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Example from Eboni K. Williams: "It was announced in October 2020 that she would become the first African-American cast member of The Real Housewives of New York City."
I see these peppered in articles from time to time. Sometimes they seem like WP:PUFF. Sometimes they seem like trivia. Do we have any policies concerning statements like these? Should they be included? Deleted? Is being the first of minority group X to do Y thing notable? In theory, every single topic article could have like 10 or 20 of these, if they were to list every race and gender, so I wonder. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
According to this suggestion, I wanted to bring this discussion to the right place.
WP:GNG requires WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/ WP:IS. This is a clearcut policy, esp. if unreliable sources refers to sources based on user-generated content, paid content, press releases, etc.
However, the way WP:RSP has gone, it appears that many partisan sources or other major media sources that have in the past pushed particular agendas or even conspiracy theories have been listed as unreliable.
My contention is that there needs to be some sort of a differentiation between what's considered a reliable source for factual citation, and what's considered a reliable source for notability-related significant coverage. e.g. while Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro, Telesur, The Onion etc have been deemed unreliable for factual coverage, in my view, a profile in any one of these should count towards WP:SIGCOV (I mean, if The Onion is lampooning you, you are probably notable.). On the other hand, any amount of coverage in unreliable sources such as Blogger, Facebook, LinkedIn, Medium, Twitter, Patheos, PR Newswire etc should not. Perhaps instead of RS/IS, we should require SIGCOV in noteworthy sources/ independent sources, even if the noteworthy sources are unreliable for factual information.
Any thoughts? — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 09:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this query, but suppose a notable person (i.e., meriting own Wiki biographical page) lived as an adult in some town for a relatively short time during which they were "famous" for reasons other than having lived in that town. Does this fact entitle mention as a "Notable Person" in that town's Wiki page? (I thought such listings were of people born or at least growing up there, or later achieving notability while living there.) Specifically, I'm thinking of Andre Previn's mention in Wiki's article on the Pittsburgh suburb of Beaver. Previn presumably lived in Beaver some or all of his mid-career 10-year stint as conductor of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, but his Wiki article doesn't mention this. And Google Search on [Previn +Beaver] yields zero hits! Casey ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | → | Archive 75 |
Hi. I have a question regarding trivial mentions and a self-published source on an article I am considering nominating for deletion. I don't want to waste other users' time nominating unless I am certain my interpretations are right. Would I be ok to post specific information here with a view to getting feedback, or is this noticeboard only for general discussion? Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks. The article in question is William Dickson (Falklands), it is the biography of an early settler of the Falkland Islands, who was present at the British takeover of the islands in 1833. Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There are probably at least 10 valid sources which mention him similarly to the following example (taken from The Falklands Story 1592-1982, by Mary Cawkill):
Mention 1
"A flagstaff was put up at the house of Vernet's storekeeper, William Dickson, who in the absence of Brisbane was the senior British resident on the islands, and the Union Jack hoisted." p.36
Mention 2
"It was this [limiting of the gaucho's freedom to catch wild cattle], not the payment by Brisbane to them in paper money instead of silver, as the British government was to allege [...] that sparked off the gaucho eruption which, on 26th August 1833, resulted in the deaths of Brisbane, the storekeeper Dickson, the capataz of gauchos, an Argentinean and a German trader in a massacre which would become known as the Port Louis murders." p.39
There are slight variations in the sources, some mention his Irish birthplace or nationality, some specify that he was instructed to raise the Union Jack when boats arrived, and some call him a leading citizen. None are more than 2 sentences.
Is this type of mention "trivial" and therefore no good for establishing notability? Does the volume of sources make any difference (like I say, I reckon I could put nearly 10 similarly worded texts as references)? Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There is one source that gives a much bigger mention of Dickson. The Dictionary of Falkland Biography article on him, written by David Tatham, a diplomat and former governor of the Falklands. It does not mention anything we could really call notable, beyond what is mentioned above, but there are more details of his life spread over 2 paragraphs, so I think it is fair to say he has significant coverage in this source.
The source concerns me because it is self-published, and as I understand it, self-published sources are not ideal for establishing notability. Tatham is not a historian and it appears to be his only published work, furthermore, a significant number of the entries are of people who would not meet the criteria for notability in wikipedia.
Should this source count for establishing notability? Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Part of the problem we have here is that we have Boynamedsue continually insisting that unless we all do exactly what he says, when he says it, he will try to get the article deleted. This is distinctly unhelpful, particularly when coupled with the forum shopping, with non-neutral or inaccurate comments.
As I noted at one of the other places where this has been raised, I do not accept that Tatham is a self-published source within the spirit of WP:SPS. Kahastok talk 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to comment at the article, which I think is what this is really about. North8000 ( talk) 17:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:SUSTAINED is a bit vague. If a website gets a lot of sudden coverage mentioning it was shut down, and the only other mention it ever got was when they tried in the past to shut it down for piracy, is that notable? Wikipedia:Notability (web) also mentions Wikipedia:PERMASTUB. If the article will never have anything possible written in it other than something brief, since there is nothing to expand it with, should it exist? Dream Focus 00:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:SUSTAINED seems to be a bit rough.
Sentence | text | comment |
---|---|---|
1 | Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. | Nonsense? What is it supposed to mean? Just cut it? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
2 | Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". | Belongs in an essay? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
3 | Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. | True, tending to a truism. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
4 | However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. | Finally, the meat! What is "sustained"? Fresh coverage at 1 month? 6 months? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
5 | New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION. | Comment on "new companies" belongs in WP:CORP. Comment on "future events" belongs at WP:Notability (events)#Future events, or the essay WP:Future event. This sentence is a random digression when the text is still begging: What is "sustained"? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
6 | If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. | A brief summary of WP:BIO1E and WP:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
I call the section mostly bloat, and think it should be refocused to say what "sustained" means. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Daniela Tablante; born 12 December 1995 is a Venezuelan and Spanish television host, producer, and actress who currently works in the media in the United States of America.
Tablante started her career as a news reporter in Univision Orlando, where she delivered daily news, politics and stories that impacted the hispanic community . Afterwards she hosted the morning show, Despierta Orlando, where she spoke about Central Florida public events, weather and highlights of the main news shows of the day. Also, she broadcasted daily news stories in one of the main Spanish radio stations in the Orlando area, Salsa 98.1.
Daniela got her first degree in Mass Communications in Lindenwood University in St Charles, Missouri before working in Orlando's television and radio station. Right after she graduated, she was selected to work on an internship in NBC-affiliated television station KSDK in the city of St. Louis.
After graduating from college and working for Univision Orlando for a year, Tablante decided to pursue her graduate education in the city of Miami where she graduated for the second time with a masters degree in Mass Communications and Media Business with a mention in Hispanic media from Florida International University. While she was studying her masters, Tablante worked in the scientific and media research department of the university and also she was simultaneously studying acting in Miami Dade College.
On Tablante’s last semester of graduate school, she started to film an independent documentary which is now streaming on Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV.
In the last years, Daniela Tablante has worked as a freelance reporter for Univision and Azteca of SouthWest Florida. Also, she has been involved in the production of several film and documentary projects in the United States and Mexico.
In 2018, she registered her company in the state of Florida, Daniela Tablante Communications LLC where she serves as CEO and Creative Director. Also that year, she participated on her first runway as a model of Miami Swim Week fashion show Descalzos. Next year, she walked the runway of Miami Swim Week for Art Hearts Fashion, a fashion production company that owns some of the biggest shows of Miami Swim Week. In 2019, Tablante walked the runway for brands like Carmen Steffens. Also she participated in her first New York Fashion Week later that year where she walked the runway for Carmen Steffens for the second time and other fashion brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinogang ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Please weigh in: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software#Software_notability_guidelines. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Would I be correct in assuming that in order for a topic to be notable, reliable sources need to cover the topic in its entirety? For example, at Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies_related_questions I argued that while topics like "Superstition in Iran" and "Superstition in Pakistan" were clearly notable in their own right, we could not use sources for those topics to establish the notability of "Superstition in Muslim societies". For that we'd actually need a source that ties in superstitions in various Muslim countries together. Is my understanding correct? VR talk 04:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability Agenda for Football (Soccer) Match Official (Referees) where this subject is now being discussed. A formal RfC has been suggested, but not yet drafted much less opened. Input from interested editors would be welcome. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 16:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There are so many double standards, contradictions, loopholes and gaming that being "notable" can either be p-easy to gain in the case of sports or Iranian villages or almost impossible when it comes to cryptocurrencies or fictional characters. I have had so many "last straws" for Wikipedia so often that I don't bother in most cases, but AFD has p-ed me off more than usual. Wikipedia's 20 year test is coming up soon, and people and donators will soon write more about the big gaps of knowledge deleted by Wikipedia. Second generation wikis that are more inclusionist will soon overtake Wikipedia (even Wikimedia's own Wikidata has more coverage), and Wikipedia will be considered non notable by future encyclopedists. 94.175.6.205 ( talk) 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(But what other system could succeed? A professionally-run online outfit like Encarta or Britannica? With a fiftieth of Wikipedia's content, they're all in the dustbin. A strictly moderated site with editorial oversight curated by "experts," as with Citizendium? That effort's been moribund for a decade, with less than a ten-thousandth Wikipedia's content. Wikipedia probably won't be any more eternal than Britannica was, but what's going to replace it isn't going to be Same-As-WP-Only-With-Rules-I-Like.) Ravenswing 05:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Original poster here, I think my ideas are right. Cryptocurrencies are one of the most controversial topics in the field of finance and have been linked to many crimes and scams even threating to destroy twitter. But they also changed peoples riches and many people have become millionaires and many countries like Venezuela have been improved by having cryptocurrency. The topic deserves to be notable and documented. Fictional characters also influence our lives by giving people common stories and references to share, so should be notable through that way. The notability debate has gone on for too long, too many Wikipedians have left the project after having all their articles destroyed by deletionism. I am an ex Wikipedian my self who left years ago but still sometimes makes a few edits. But no matter what happens to Wikipedia, inclusionism will always win in the end because people want to know and if Wikipedia won't provide it, somewhere else will. 94.175.6.205 ( talk) 12:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd certainly make a bunch of changes if I were appointed Dictator of Wikipedia. But I'm not, nor going to be. Not even Jimbo's that, these days. I put in my two cents' worth, and there are notability guidelines out there I'm proud to have created. And beyond that, I live with the compromises, and accept that a lot of editors don't agree with me on this or that. If I couldn't accept that, I'd walk. But beyond that? I figure on taking the chance that there are only a handful of people butthurt enough to flip Wikipedia the bird because their pet obscure athlete or ephemeral minor porn star or -- say -- fly-by-night cryptocurrency that no one ever wrote a news piece about don't have an article. Ravenswing 05:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not really interested in cryptocurrencies and fictional characters, but I must say, that I understand the IP and I agree that the Notability policy is the Achilles hell of Wikipedia. I mean for instance my favourite football club is deemed not notable, my favourite band is deemed not notable etc. (I have no personal connection to the any of them of course) and many local topics I would be interested in to read also. I find it very sad that a huge part of human knowledge is not available to the users. I do not want to sound pathetic but I believe, that most posters here do not have a slightest clue, how it is, when the topics you are most interested in are not allowed to be included in the encyclopedia. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 09:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know i’m setting up my own wiki to cover encyclopedic topics discriminated against by the notability policy. Deletionists will be treated the same as vandals on this wiki. I’ve noticed other wikis do the same. Eventually the inclusionist wikis will win out in terms of coverage and deletionist wikis will be forgotten about. People have been arguing about notability for over 15 years, admit it is a failed and discriminatory policy. 94.175.6.205 ( talk) 10:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Basically COI editing combined with notable sources ala SEO but for notability. This will happen as new generations of notability policy aware COI editors work in conjunction with the media to get get their articles notability optimized on Wikipedia to avoid deletion. I could easily become "notable" enough with a few thousand dollars and do multiple events to get round the ONEEVENT policy. 77.96.44.212 ( talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that the far more common way to buy their way into Wikipedia is to hire a wiki-savvy undeclared paid editor. Our badly written guidelines that define pretty much every editor as a wp:COI prevent the focus that it will take to fix that, and making life hell for the rare ones who declare makes the undeclared problem much worse. North8000 ( talk) 01:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of topics that are popular with kids but do not have articles as the systemic bias of adults not writing as many sources about them (apart from marketing of course) and that the target audience is not yet old enough to edit Wikipedia competently. Draft:Gacha Life seems to be stuck in this limbo as it really is a phenomenon popular with younger audiences. I'm out of the target demographic but I can see the problems that Wikipedia has in this area. The only way out seems to be if such subjects get an unexpected adult following (My Little Pony and Thomas the Tank Engine being the well known examples), or waiting until the target audience grows up and write about them from a nostalgia perspective. Baby Shark only became notable because it got 7 billion views from repeated watching on apps, it would be just another kids song otherwise. 2A01:4C8:72:A70B:24E0:199A:3079:4118 ( talk) 18:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Companies and organizations; and biography articles are especially subject to notability argument. Although WP:NCORP currently places stronger emphasis on quality of sources, the guidelines only define the two extremes of "a passing mention" as trivial; and and a reliably published book written entirely on the history of IBM on the very extreme end of "significant coverage". To better resist gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals; and connected contributors, it would be very useful to have the shades in between better defined.
Presently, NORG requires multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary coverage with one of the sources passing broad circulation, and at the absolute minimum, one of it must be national, regional or international. This is often read as a page or two in daily regional paper, plus a cluster of local alternative weekly coverage. This had lead to proliferation of articles about neighborhood restaurants, event venues, book stores and such being ruled "notable", because of a one page coverage in the regional daily paper about something that happened at the place at one point, plus a cluster of local press. How do we interpret notability building effect of "a page or two about the article subject person/organization/company" in a highly specialized books about the discipline (i.e. graffiti art) as opposed to the same amount of coverage in People's Magazine, or Reader's Digest?
WP:AUD could benefit from building consensus on what's considered "limited interest" coverage; as well as "regional coverage".
This AfD failed.
These were the sources used to argue SIRS and AUD requirements:
One of them was a book specializing in graffiti. I personally define things like this as relatively trivial coverage and "limited interest" because it is something you would only see if you specifically go looking for a book on the subject; and a specialized book that is dedicated to a narrowly defined book is bound to have more details about obscure subjects and organizations. Currently, WP:AUD offers no guidance on how to apply "broad audience" vs "limited audience" on highly specialized academic journals or books.
Graywalls ( talk) 10:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
So, the topic is borderline on GNG (does not meet it rigorously, but is borderline on the "common practice" GNG standard) and fails Ncorp. Structurally this makes Ncorp irrelevant in this case. Plus nobody argued that it met Ncorp so it's not pointing to needing a change in ncorp. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd assert that there are many fewer "surprising" results over any dislike of SIRS than from these other factors. Ravenswing 06:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
What WP:N is missing though is some equivalent to NORG's clarificarion that any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources
. Honestly, from my perspective the rest of NORG is only useful where it is restating what constitutes
independent coverage, while the explanation of
WP:NOTINHERITED that it offers does more harm than good IMO. SIRS really just provides a thoroughly spelled out, objective-sounding set of criteria that won't under any circumstances allow regurgitated press releases to count, while the requirement that each source capture all of the relevant criteria at once seems basically feckless in my view.
Newimpartial (
talk)
23:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Some sources are primary for certain kinds of information but independent for other kinds of information. This distinction should be highlighted somewhere.
e.g. YouTube and Twitter and Medium and Patreon are obviously self-published media, and can not be relied on for factual information. I mean, obviously.
However, from these same sources, statistical information such as number of channel/profile subscribers, video views, tweet likes etc are clearly reliable pieces of information coming from independent sources.
This has multiple use-cases, including citation of this information in general, and e.g. WP:ENTERTAINER lists "cult following" as one of the criteria. If an entertainer has an inordinate number of followers/subscribers, that may or may not be considered cult following, but it should be legitimate to use social media stats to make that argument. Remember, the whole notion of "cult" following is that it's not mainstream, and therefore unlikely to be covered in traditional RS. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for Comment. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As the title says, we have three separate pages with substantial overlap. The periodicals page has the WP:NNEWSPAPER shortcut but otherwise seems more focused on academic journals, which has its own page. The media page has more useful content for a newspaper, but also covers things like books (which have their own guideline). The periodicals page and academic journals page are both classified as essays, and the media page as an explanatory supplement, and the three have significant differences in their standards. I think that a substantial restructuring is likely called for, as it's confusing and detrimental to have forks like this. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The GNG currently contains some redundant language in these two bullet points:
- "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- "Sources" [1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. [2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
The point that sources can be in any language or medium is repeated, as well as the point that multiple publications from one author/organization count as one source (which is in both the footnote and the main text). The quality of prose here really needs to be higher, given that this is the central element of one of our core policies. Can we please rewrite it to remove the repetition? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I've started Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on NCRIC, feel free to join the discussion. Fram ( talk) 09:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Are there any special notability requirements for statutes (or laws)? I don't recall seeing them. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Adam Leszczyński has had a {{ notability}} tag applied to it by two editors, who dispute that the multiple sources and reviews cited in the article establish notability, but neither of them will open an AfD for it (see Talk:Adam Leszczyński). I would like to resolve the dispute so that the tag can be removed. I would open an AfD myself, but that would be closed as speedy keep since I would not be arguing for deletion. How to resolve this? Does the cleanup tag just stay up forever? ( t · c) buidhe 17:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
First, I would like to remind User:Buidhe one more time that if they bring a dispute to a notice board, they need to ping other users involved. I would not have been aware of this discussion if User:Masem hadn’t pinged me. This is like fifth or sixth time that Buidhe has done this. This practice is discourteous.
Second, yes, Masem and User:Postdlf have it exactly right. Tag is there to alert editors to needed improvements. Personally, I’d prefer if the article continued to exist on Wikipedia, but right now I simply don’t see notability established.
Third, Buidhe, you say there are “four full length book reviews”? What are they? In what outlet? Links please. Pretty much every academic historian publishes a book. It’s more or less a requirement for tenure. When the book is published, the book is reviewed in dedicated journals. Again, this happens with almost every academic historian. But having tenure is not sufficient for notability. Volunteer Marek 18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The notability tag that this dispute concerns was the wrong notability tag. As Leszczyński is described as being a professor, it should have been tagged {{ notability|academics}}, not {{ notability}}. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The elephant in the room for a big or big issue with a question or controversy on an issue that is obvious or that we all know about,[ [3]], but no one mentions or wants to discuss to resolve a notability dispute is "authority control." Sometimes we forget something very important. Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not set in stone and their content and interpretation have to evolve over time. In my humble opinion we would have to stop acting like robots robots with the rules of Wikipedia and use more common sense. If we act like robots, we better replace all Wikipedia administrators with bots that strictly enforce the rules and regulations. That if, without common sense. Lately I see a lot of notability disputes about authors where it is perfectly clear that their notability is obvious. Where it is clear and "there should be no question" is authority control. An authority check of an author with innumerable bibliographic IDs in a VIAF of the best National Libraries and International Universities in the world would have to be valid and be sufficient to demonstrate and resolve a dispute of notability. Many people, most of whom I include myself, where else we look to see the notoriety of an author is precisely in the control of authority. It is the place where, without a doubt, the notableness of an author is verified and verified and not in the sources. References and sources are very good at demonstrating the notability of an author when they do not have bibliographic IDs in an authority check or VIAF. That said, when ever, we see an author article with a wide authority ID control and we see the label on the article, that it is possible that the subject of the article does not meet the general guidelines of Wikipedia notability, it turns out ridiculous and we see that many times we act like headless chickens without any common sense. I think it is urgently necessary to include the "exception" in the notability policies and guidelines the "authority control".-- Sorginak ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I see this policy come up a lot in the context of requests for pages to be deleted. Perhaps it's time to specify what qualifies as a valid secondary source, since people seem to have different opinions about this. Or maybe relax the policy and allow certain kinds of primary sources. There really should be some ratio allowed (70/30?). It seems clear to me that simply relying on secondary sources results in failure to classify information correctly. This is especially the case with technology, where the best source of information is often the documentation which is written by the authors/programmers themselves. Avindra talk / contribs 21:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
For instance, a subject that uses 50 primary sources, and only 5 secondary sources is not subject to deletion because any percentage or ratio of its content is not supported by secondary sources. The only issue, from the perspective of assessing notability, is whether the five secondary sources treat the topic in substantive detail, and are reliable and independent (I am not saying that that ratio or percentage is ideal, just providing a weighted example to make a point; some content should not be supported by primary sources, e.g., self-serving claims, but that is not a notability concern).
For this example, the topic is notable because (as both Ravenswing and Masem talk about above) the five substantive, secondary, reliable and independent sources demonstrate that the world has taken note of the topic—and that's the end of the inquiry as far as notability (and deletion based on that doctrine's principles) is concerned. I do acknowledge, however, that at times an article may have so many citations to primary sources that it becomes difficult mechanically to find the (reliable, independent, substantively-treating) secondary sources in the mix, in order to properly make a notability assessment, but that still does not change the fact that such assessment of notability does not properly turn on how many primary sources are being cited in relation to secondary sources.
So, can you point to any examples of a topic not being allowed, deleted, or requested to be deleted, for notability reasons based upon the use of primary sources for its information, rather than based upon the presence, or not, of the rights types of secondary sources that, by their breadth of treatment, demonstrate the topic's recognition by the world? -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. the reason we can't "relax the policy and allow certain kinds of primary sources" is because we don't turn to the existence of secondary sources, and exclude primary sources, as evidence of notability, as some sort of arbitrary cutoff. Rather, the nature of what a primary source is excludes it by logical necessity; a person/entity's writing about themselves, for example, is simply not evidence of the world taking note of a subject, and yet that precept is what notability runs on.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 21:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)We have to "over-rely" on secondary sources, as we are all notable to people we know or employ us (and certainly ourselves). Note that it is notability we are talking about, bit facts about a notable person. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
MOS:N. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#MOS:N until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
GMX
ping!
23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Informal poll: would it be valuable to establish specific criteria for award entities? While I know that they're presently covered by NCORP, I'm thinking that it might be rare for an award entity to be written about, but there might be other reasons why one could be notable. For example, if an award ceremony were regularly televised somewhere and watched by N million people, or if entertainment news reported on that year's winners. On the other hand I could see that opening the door to a lot of fluffy award entities that wiggle their way onto some niche market's airwaves or some lesser entertainment site that is starved for content, but that could be a good reason to be specific about what qualifies. Anyhow, it's informal. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
So we are deciding on a new name for "God" I'm assuming because the name has been used for many different reasons? That question is just as silly as thinking or assuming any human would be so stupid to even think about changing the name of God. Let the Potsherds stride with the Potsherds of the earth CloverWhite ( talk) 10:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Example from Eboni K. Williams: "It was announced in October 2020 that she would become the first African-American cast member of The Real Housewives of New York City."
I see these peppered in articles from time to time. Sometimes they seem like WP:PUFF. Sometimes they seem like trivia. Do we have any policies concerning statements like these? Should they be included? Deleted? Is being the first of minority group X to do Y thing notable? In theory, every single topic article could have like 10 or 20 of these, if they were to list every race and gender, so I wonder. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
According to this suggestion, I wanted to bring this discussion to the right place.
WP:GNG requires WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/ WP:IS. This is a clearcut policy, esp. if unreliable sources refers to sources based on user-generated content, paid content, press releases, etc.
However, the way WP:RSP has gone, it appears that many partisan sources or other major media sources that have in the past pushed particular agendas or even conspiracy theories have been listed as unreliable.
My contention is that there needs to be some sort of a differentiation between what's considered a reliable source for factual citation, and what's considered a reliable source for notability-related significant coverage. e.g. while Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro, Telesur, The Onion etc have been deemed unreliable for factual coverage, in my view, a profile in any one of these should count towards WP:SIGCOV (I mean, if The Onion is lampooning you, you are probably notable.). On the other hand, any amount of coverage in unreliable sources such as Blogger, Facebook, LinkedIn, Medium, Twitter, Patheos, PR Newswire etc should not. Perhaps instead of RS/IS, we should require SIGCOV in noteworthy sources/ independent sources, even if the noteworthy sources are unreliable for factual information.
Any thoughts? — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 09:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this query, but suppose a notable person (i.e., meriting own Wiki biographical page) lived as an adult in some town for a relatively short time during which they were "famous" for reasons other than having lived in that town. Does this fact entitle mention as a "Notable Person" in that town's Wiki page? (I thought such listings were of people born or at least growing up there, or later achieving notability while living there.) Specifically, I'm thinking of Andre Previn's mention in Wiki's article on the Pittsburgh suburb of Beaver. Previn presumably lived in Beaver some or all of his mid-career 10-year stint as conductor of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, but his Wiki article doesn't mention this. And Google Search on [Previn +Beaver] yields zero hits! Casey ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)