This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability (web) page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
This guideline covers several related areas. Please see discussions on website sub-types at: |
Index
| |||||||||
|
|||||||||
Since this is far from my area of expertise I'm wondering if anyone can help with the notability of these two entries Shorty Awards and Foodimentary. The latter of these strikes me as non-notable. There is no reliable independent coverage of the subject. However, Foodimentary has apparently won a Shorty Award, which would satisfy #2 here if the Shorty Awards are "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Any thoughts? Griswaldo ( talk) 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to highlight that, as well as winning Shorty Awards, Foodimentary has had 3 articles written where it is the sole subject. One by Epicurious, one by SlashFood, and one by FineCooking. There's been some debate as to the reliability of these as sources though (see the talk page). Eikou ( talk) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If winning an award does not result in significant coverage in reliable sources, you can be pretty sure that the award is not "a well-known and independent award". I don't see anything in the Foodimentary article that suggests it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, though maybe that information is buried in all the ridiculous trivia about "Had a tweet quoted in the LA Times blog" and "Mentioned in a blog on Cincinnati.com". Thanks, Starblueheather ( talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As part of my recent request for adminship, I was asked to review the page at a copyediting perspective, which I did so in this edit. Below is a list of changes made within the one edit.
If anyone has any objections or comments, feel free to discuss them below. Guoguo12 (Talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia needs to look at the issue of blog notability differently. We are in uncharted territory, and the rules need to ensure inclusiveness and diversity if WP is to be truly comprehensive in scope.
This isn't about me and my blog, but I'm using myself as an example to illustrate the difficulty of establishing notability under existing rules.
With no professional background in books or publishing, I started my blog about Australian literature three years ago. However, In the last twelve months, my blog has been linked to an American university as a resource, my reviews are featured on senior secondary school reading lists, I've been featured as a blogger of note in two other lit blogs (one US, one UK), and on the strength of my knowledge about OzLit, I've been an invited guest at two major literary award ceremonies, suggested as a judge for a major award, invited to speak at a writers' festival, and asked to set up a 'shadow' panel for the Miles Franklin Award (like the shadow Giller Prize panel). (Almost) every Australian publisher of books knows who I am. I have a Google page ranking of 5.
But how would anybody assessing the notability of my blog know any of this (except for the page ranking)? The people who have approached me have done it privately. I don't brag about it on my blog, and I have never been mentioned in the national media. (After all, traditional media journalists see bloggers as rivals, and many are scornful about amateurs).
Literary fiction competes with general fiction for media attention and although it has great cultural significance it gets very little airspace. Australian Literature is an even smaller niche. A small team of Aussie litlovers have worked tirelessly to have our notable authors included in Wikipedia because they weren't there. Anyone using WP to find out more about AusLit would want to find links to external resources such as reference books - and litblogs.
I'm just a middle sized fish in the small Australian Literature pond that is swamped by oceans of US and UK lit. I'm sure that Wikipedia wants to ensure that it is inclusive of blogs that matter in countries outside the Big 2. There are excellent, high quality blogs that offer significant information about the literary scene (and other fields too, I expect) in Africa, Canada, and India. For many young people, online reviews are the sole source of information that they use. Indeed in many cases book reviews on litblogs are taking up the space vacated by traditional media as it becomes uneconomic for print to carry them. Like the blogs that are documenting the Arab spring, they are a phenomena that have great cultural significance. But unlike a blog about middle eastern politics, their notability is not easy for an outsider to establish.
From a personal point of view I don't really care if my blog makes it as notable or not, but I am particularly concerned about the principle of inclusiveness, especially regarding litblogs from Africa which are documenting the highly significant growth of African literature written by Africans. I am worried that these may not meet the notability criteria as they seem to be at the moment.
I don't know what the answer is except to suggest that the rules should be flexible and open-ended rather than creating fences to keep out minorities.
Ok, off my soapbox!
-- ANZLitLovers ( talk) 15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Would having a significant number of notable people being interviewed on a website not confirm notability of that website? Any objection towards that being added to this guideline's page under web content? Just because the mainstream news media doesn't cover certain things, doesn't mean it isn't notable. Dream Focus 04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Room for Magic (2nd nomination) has got me thinking about criterion three, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The webcomic in question doesn't seem notable by any common-sense measure - no hits on Google News or Books, no claim in the article of wider influence - and yet criterion three gives it a claim to notability under our guideline, as argued in the previous AfD discussion from 2006. Is there any actual need for this criterion? It seems to me that anything worthy of an article would already pass criterion one by being covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. Let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; [1] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, Facebook, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).
Does it has notability?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Would it be covered by this guideline? I wonder if Wikipedia:Notability (fonts) should redirect here, and should we have a section or a sentence about them? Or would Wikipedia:Notability (software) be a better place for this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are our notability guidelines really fair for YouTubers who naturally get little to no coverage, regardless of whether they have a large fan base? CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.If we exclude any of those criteria, other than Original Research what would we base the article on? SPACKlick ( talk) 13:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I applaud the original question, as a discussion of whether or not the current Notability guidelines sufficiently address the phenomenon of YouTube. All the quotations of current policy and !votes based on those policies aren't really pertinent to the discussion, since the point of the question is whether or not we should consider expanding the concept of WP:GNG to include new criteria or considerations. That said, I'm stymied as to what the new criteria would be unless we resorted to popularity or hits on the website neither of which seem to be an unreliable metric alone. Clearly when someone has a following and millions of hits, it does seem that that is notable, but I'm not sure there's a good way to establish an arbitrary count that would constitute such notability. I also agree that waiting for journalist to write about it (which, like it or not, is the primary focus of those seeking a Reliable Source) seems that someone could be indeed notable for a long time waiting for such coverage. I'm going to give this some more thought and get back to you. Vertium When all is said and done 02:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Post-close comment, for when this inevitably comes up again: Aside from what the closer said, the underlying rationale is faulty: 'YouTube has become one of the most popular sites on the internet. Many of their users make a career off of it.
' Sushi restaruants are among of the most type of eatery in the world. Many customers of them make a career out of sushi. But this does not make even really, really good sushi chefs notable, if they are not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, at least some of them
secondary sources. Most of the best people in the world at most professions, from grocery store clerks to truck drivers, are not notable. That's life. YouTube "stars" will eventually become notable, anyway, as media converge more, and as the nature of celebrity continues to shift. Give it time. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no objection to changing
Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
to
Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
Pinging Adam9007 ( talk · contribs).
There was minimal participation in this RfC likely because the opening post asked for thoughts and did not propose a specific wording. I recommend either starting an RfC about the wording proposed late in the discussion or boldly making the change to the guideline and starting an RfC if an editor objects to the change. Cunard ( talk) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As someone who knows that the world wide web actually is, including its differences from the internet, I am at a loss as to how increasingly many products are technically classed as web content, even if they are not web content at all by definition. As if how it's distributed somehow changes what it actually is. I simply do not understand footnote #1; is it saying that if it's not available in a shop, then it's web content, regardless of what is it? I've removed several A7 tags from articles about computer programs that are mainly, if not only available via the web, but according to this guideline, I was wrong to do so ( WP:A7 links to this guideline), even though they're not in themselves web content (I'm talking here of things such as Android apps). A computer program is a computer program, regardless of how it's distributed. Under that rule, with the ever-growing use of the web as it slowly but surely replaces physical shops, it won't be that long before pretty much everything is classed as web content, even if it has nothing to do with the world wide web, but merely distributed via it. The web is already the primary, if not sole distribution medium for many products. If it's not actually on the web, it shouldn't come under here, but rather, WP:NPRODUCT or WP:NSOFTWARE. It's already extremely difficult, if not impossible to get many common programs (such as web browsers) from anywhere but the web, are they classed as web content? I'm also talking about other products that are available primarily/only via the web; it's just that I'm more familiar with computer programs that other types of product. Web content should mean just that; content that is accessed and used via the web (things like websites, blogs, youtube videos/channels etc, and note I said the web, not the internet), otherwise the term "web content" as it's currently used is misleading. To sum up, if something's a product, it should come under the products guideline, regardless of how it's distributed. What are your thoughts on this? Adam9007 ( talk) 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not have any YouTuber in particular in mind, but I realize there are a handful of articles of articles on YouTubers. Obviously, merely posting content would not establish notability. While I realize that several factors determine notability, I was wondering how many subscribers (roughly) a notable YouTuber would have.
Thanks HarryOtter ( talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:
Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?
Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 23:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This guideline on notability for websites states two conditions for which it will admit the existence of notability for a website and allow an article on the subject. The first of these appears to be a re-statement of the General Notability Guidelines, and the second is the winning of certain unnamed awards. It then states that meeting "either of these two conditions" likely qualifies an article as notable. My question is this: why do we have subject-specific notability guidelines for websites (or for any subject, for that matter) that state that one of the conditions for establishing notability is meeting the General Notability Guidelines? Isn't that... Redundant? And arent' there a lot of SSNGs that pretty much say the same thing? "You can either meet the General Notability Guidelines or you can meet these other "special" guidelines..." If a subject meets the GNG, doesn't the conversation end right there? I think that the reason editors come to SSNGs is to see if their subject maybe qualifies as notable under a certain special guideline. Isn't that because they already know it likely fails to meet the GNG? Why does this need restating here? If it doesn't (and I don't think it does) then shouldn't we just axe it? Or does the whole guideline for websites start to sound kind of stupid if we don't leave it in? A loose necktie ( talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable. It's not a guarantuee. Paradoctor ( talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
GNG ≠ Notable. I find this to be a weird argument to make, since if something passes GNG, it is notable in almost all cases, unless there is an SNG or policy that adds restrictions on top of GNG, such as NCORP or NOT. In general, GNG = Notable. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This SNG seems a bit verbose. The meat and potatoes of this SNG/page seems to be
the two criteria, and it seems to me that criteria #1 is just re-stating GNG. So one might conclude that the only unique thing on this whole page is criterion #2, The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article.
This is a pattern I've noticed with a lot of the SNGs. Their pages are noisy, with the important criteria buried amid a restatement of principles (not inherent, not inherited, GNG, etc.) and buried between rarely used criteria that no longer come up at AFD.
Anyway, this SNG with possibly only one unique criteria seems like it might be a good SNG to merge with another page, perhaps NCORP. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability (web) page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
This guideline covers several related areas. Please see discussions on website sub-types at: |
Index
| |||||||||
|
|||||||||
Since this is far from my area of expertise I'm wondering if anyone can help with the notability of these two entries Shorty Awards and Foodimentary. The latter of these strikes me as non-notable. There is no reliable independent coverage of the subject. However, Foodimentary has apparently won a Shorty Award, which would satisfy #2 here if the Shorty Awards are "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Any thoughts? Griswaldo ( talk) 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to highlight that, as well as winning Shorty Awards, Foodimentary has had 3 articles written where it is the sole subject. One by Epicurious, one by SlashFood, and one by FineCooking. There's been some debate as to the reliability of these as sources though (see the talk page). Eikou ( talk) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If winning an award does not result in significant coverage in reliable sources, you can be pretty sure that the award is not "a well-known and independent award". I don't see anything in the Foodimentary article that suggests it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, though maybe that information is buried in all the ridiculous trivia about "Had a tweet quoted in the LA Times blog" and "Mentioned in a blog on Cincinnati.com". Thanks, Starblueheather ( talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As part of my recent request for adminship, I was asked to review the page at a copyediting perspective, which I did so in this edit. Below is a list of changes made within the one edit.
If anyone has any objections or comments, feel free to discuss them below. Guoguo12 (Talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia needs to look at the issue of blog notability differently. We are in uncharted territory, and the rules need to ensure inclusiveness and diversity if WP is to be truly comprehensive in scope.
This isn't about me and my blog, but I'm using myself as an example to illustrate the difficulty of establishing notability under existing rules.
With no professional background in books or publishing, I started my blog about Australian literature three years ago. However, In the last twelve months, my blog has been linked to an American university as a resource, my reviews are featured on senior secondary school reading lists, I've been featured as a blogger of note in two other lit blogs (one US, one UK), and on the strength of my knowledge about OzLit, I've been an invited guest at two major literary award ceremonies, suggested as a judge for a major award, invited to speak at a writers' festival, and asked to set up a 'shadow' panel for the Miles Franklin Award (like the shadow Giller Prize panel). (Almost) every Australian publisher of books knows who I am. I have a Google page ranking of 5.
But how would anybody assessing the notability of my blog know any of this (except for the page ranking)? The people who have approached me have done it privately. I don't brag about it on my blog, and I have never been mentioned in the national media. (After all, traditional media journalists see bloggers as rivals, and many are scornful about amateurs).
Literary fiction competes with general fiction for media attention and although it has great cultural significance it gets very little airspace. Australian Literature is an even smaller niche. A small team of Aussie litlovers have worked tirelessly to have our notable authors included in Wikipedia because they weren't there. Anyone using WP to find out more about AusLit would want to find links to external resources such as reference books - and litblogs.
I'm just a middle sized fish in the small Australian Literature pond that is swamped by oceans of US and UK lit. I'm sure that Wikipedia wants to ensure that it is inclusive of blogs that matter in countries outside the Big 2. There are excellent, high quality blogs that offer significant information about the literary scene (and other fields too, I expect) in Africa, Canada, and India. For many young people, online reviews are the sole source of information that they use. Indeed in many cases book reviews on litblogs are taking up the space vacated by traditional media as it becomes uneconomic for print to carry them. Like the blogs that are documenting the Arab spring, they are a phenomena that have great cultural significance. But unlike a blog about middle eastern politics, their notability is not easy for an outsider to establish.
From a personal point of view I don't really care if my blog makes it as notable or not, but I am particularly concerned about the principle of inclusiveness, especially regarding litblogs from Africa which are documenting the highly significant growth of African literature written by Africans. I am worried that these may not meet the notability criteria as they seem to be at the moment.
I don't know what the answer is except to suggest that the rules should be flexible and open-ended rather than creating fences to keep out minorities.
Ok, off my soapbox!
-- ANZLitLovers ( talk) 15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Would having a significant number of notable people being interviewed on a website not confirm notability of that website? Any objection towards that being added to this guideline's page under web content? Just because the mainstream news media doesn't cover certain things, doesn't mean it isn't notable. Dream Focus 04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Room for Magic (2nd nomination) has got me thinking about criterion three, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The webcomic in question doesn't seem notable by any common-sense measure - no hits on Google News or Books, no claim in the article of wider influence - and yet criterion three gives it a claim to notability under our guideline, as argued in the previous AfD discussion from 2006. Is there any actual need for this criterion? It seems to me that anything worthy of an article would already pass criterion one by being covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. Let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; [1] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, Facebook, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).
Does it has notability?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Would it be covered by this guideline? I wonder if Wikipedia:Notability (fonts) should redirect here, and should we have a section or a sentence about them? Or would Wikipedia:Notability (software) be a better place for this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are our notability guidelines really fair for YouTubers who naturally get little to no coverage, regardless of whether they have a large fan base? CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.If we exclude any of those criteria, other than Original Research what would we base the article on? SPACKlick ( talk) 13:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I applaud the original question, as a discussion of whether or not the current Notability guidelines sufficiently address the phenomenon of YouTube. All the quotations of current policy and !votes based on those policies aren't really pertinent to the discussion, since the point of the question is whether or not we should consider expanding the concept of WP:GNG to include new criteria or considerations. That said, I'm stymied as to what the new criteria would be unless we resorted to popularity or hits on the website neither of which seem to be an unreliable metric alone. Clearly when someone has a following and millions of hits, it does seem that that is notable, but I'm not sure there's a good way to establish an arbitrary count that would constitute such notability. I also agree that waiting for journalist to write about it (which, like it or not, is the primary focus of those seeking a Reliable Source) seems that someone could be indeed notable for a long time waiting for such coverage. I'm going to give this some more thought and get back to you. Vertium When all is said and done 02:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Post-close comment, for when this inevitably comes up again: Aside from what the closer said, the underlying rationale is faulty: 'YouTube has become one of the most popular sites on the internet. Many of their users make a career off of it.
' Sushi restaruants are among of the most type of eatery in the world. Many customers of them make a career out of sushi. But this does not make even really, really good sushi chefs notable, if they are not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, at least some of them
secondary sources. Most of the best people in the world at most professions, from grocery store clerks to truck drivers, are not notable. That's life. YouTube "stars" will eventually become notable, anyway, as media converge more, and as the nature of celebrity continues to shift. Give it time. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no objection to changing
Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
to
Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
Pinging Adam9007 ( talk · contribs).
There was minimal participation in this RfC likely because the opening post asked for thoughts and did not propose a specific wording. I recommend either starting an RfC about the wording proposed late in the discussion or boldly making the change to the guideline and starting an RfC if an editor objects to the change. Cunard ( talk) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As someone who knows that the world wide web actually is, including its differences from the internet, I am at a loss as to how increasingly many products are technically classed as web content, even if they are not web content at all by definition. As if how it's distributed somehow changes what it actually is. I simply do not understand footnote #1; is it saying that if it's not available in a shop, then it's web content, regardless of what is it? I've removed several A7 tags from articles about computer programs that are mainly, if not only available via the web, but according to this guideline, I was wrong to do so ( WP:A7 links to this guideline), even though they're not in themselves web content (I'm talking here of things such as Android apps). A computer program is a computer program, regardless of how it's distributed. Under that rule, with the ever-growing use of the web as it slowly but surely replaces physical shops, it won't be that long before pretty much everything is classed as web content, even if it has nothing to do with the world wide web, but merely distributed via it. The web is already the primary, if not sole distribution medium for many products. If it's not actually on the web, it shouldn't come under here, but rather, WP:NPRODUCT or WP:NSOFTWARE. It's already extremely difficult, if not impossible to get many common programs (such as web browsers) from anywhere but the web, are they classed as web content? I'm also talking about other products that are available primarily/only via the web; it's just that I'm more familiar with computer programs that other types of product. Web content should mean just that; content that is accessed and used via the web (things like websites, blogs, youtube videos/channels etc, and note I said the web, not the internet), otherwise the term "web content" as it's currently used is misleading. To sum up, if something's a product, it should come under the products guideline, regardless of how it's distributed. What are your thoughts on this? Adam9007 ( talk) 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not have any YouTuber in particular in mind, but I realize there are a handful of articles of articles on YouTubers. Obviously, merely posting content would not establish notability. While I realize that several factors determine notability, I was wondering how many subscribers (roughly) a notable YouTuber would have.
Thanks HarryOtter ( talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:
Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?
Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 23:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This guideline on notability for websites states two conditions for which it will admit the existence of notability for a website and allow an article on the subject. The first of these appears to be a re-statement of the General Notability Guidelines, and the second is the winning of certain unnamed awards. It then states that meeting "either of these two conditions" likely qualifies an article as notable. My question is this: why do we have subject-specific notability guidelines for websites (or for any subject, for that matter) that state that one of the conditions for establishing notability is meeting the General Notability Guidelines? Isn't that... Redundant? And arent' there a lot of SSNGs that pretty much say the same thing? "You can either meet the General Notability Guidelines or you can meet these other "special" guidelines..." If a subject meets the GNG, doesn't the conversation end right there? I think that the reason editors come to SSNGs is to see if their subject maybe qualifies as notable under a certain special guideline. Isn't that because they already know it likely fails to meet the GNG? Why does this need restating here? If it doesn't (and I don't think it does) then shouldn't we just axe it? Or does the whole guideline for websites start to sound kind of stupid if we don't leave it in? A loose necktie ( talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable. It's not a guarantuee. Paradoctor ( talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
GNG ≠ Notable. I find this to be a weird argument to make, since if something passes GNG, it is notable in almost all cases, unless there is an SNG or policy that adds restrictions on top of GNG, such as NCORP or NOT. In general, GNG = Notable. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This SNG seems a bit verbose. The meat and potatoes of this SNG/page seems to be
the two criteria, and it seems to me that criteria #1 is just re-stating GNG. So one might conclude that the only unique thing on this whole page is criterion #2, The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article.
This is a pattern I've noticed with a lot of the SNGs. Their pages are noisy, with the important criteria buried amid a restatement of principles (not inherent, not inherited, GNG, etc.) and buried between rarely used criteria that no longer come up at AFD.
Anyway, this SNG with possibly only one unique criteria seems like it might be a good SNG to merge with another page, perhaps NCORP. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)