![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
The general notability guideline is the default expectation of notability. Special notability criteria like this one often describe the usual ways in which a topic meets GNG, then go beyond and propose some special criteria for that topic.
Here are the currently proposed criteria which I see as an application of GNG:
Here are the currently proposed criteria which I see as newly proposed notability criteria:
Criteria matching GNG are more likely to get approval. Criteria on a basis further removed from GNG take discussion and are more controversial. For more controversial criteria the Wiki community expects to see some published development of the idea including talking through how to determine it and showing examples of where it applies. Other people could have other opinions about this. With just the GNG-related criteria we still offer excellent options for establishing notability.
I will also share the opinion that I think all of these criteria are useful. Wikipedia was established in a time before popular use of consumer databases. Nowadays we can pull a lot of information from consumer databases. Much of this information is vetted as well as what Wikipedia counts as reliable sources, yet Wiki tradition discounts databases as sources. We have some challenges to navigate but publishing this and talking it through is a great idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Suppose we wanted to make a special argument for newspapers to be notable when they failed to meet GNG. Already discussed are special non-traditional criteria, like "The paper is collected by multiple academic libraries or state archives". I think we are getting ready to argue that meeting multiple special criteria can make a case for notability.
I would like to propose some more mundane baseline criteria which we should expect also from the already discussed data model for the infobox. The infobox in discussion has fields for lots of information but some is almost essential and other parts are nice to have. For newspapers which fail to meet GNG, if they are to be considered for special notability criteria, then we have to have the following information backed to a reputable data source:
All of this baseline information is what Wikidata wants. I have mixed feelings about whether we should put this kind of information in Wikidata, and also export it to an infobox in English Wikipedia, and also convert the data into human friendly prose. At the same time I think that many people would agree that the general readers and editors need better access to regional news sources and the most natural way to provide that is through a Wikipedia article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I drafted
In this documentation I raise the issue of conferring notability to a source to have its own Wikipedia article based on its popularity as a citation in Wikipedia article reference sections. I would appreciate any comments on the talk page.
We were discussing this here in WikiProject Newspapers, but I think that this is becoming an issue to discuss for academic journals, databases, and in other contexts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Peteforsyth, thanks for taking the time to put this together! I think this is a really great start and I'd like to make a couple of suggestions after having gone through and assessed several dozen (hundred? They all blended together) unassessed articles.
First, I think we should divide the criteria for notability into two categories, a category for a single criteria that establishes notability, and a category for multiple criteria that establishes notability. So based on the current list, it might look something like this:
A newspaper may also be considered notable if it meets two or more of the following criteria:
Second, I'd like to suggest adding this criteria to the list of multiple criteria:
After reviewing dozens and dozens of stubs for newspapers, I noticed a lot of partisan papers in the list that existed for only a few years (2-3, usually) with low readership, and often published intermittently (2-month run, then nothing for 6 months, followed 3 issues in 3 weeks, then nothing for 4 months, things like that). That does not strike me as being particularly impactful on the world nor particularly notable, so I'd propose we delete those articles if they do not meet the other criteria if this guideline is formally adopted. This wouldn't impact solely the partisan press (though admittedly, articles about partisan papers would probably be the most affected proportionately), and of course, if a paper meets two of the other criteria on the list, then this point is moot.
Third, I think the criteria I listed give the most concrete guidelines for any editor to follow, and so would suggest removing the others from the proposal. It takes away having to discuss things like who is considered a prominent media commentator or what counts as "frequently" syndicated. I'd love to hear your thoughts! M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 23:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've compared them more closely. There are a few items from the earlier list I would like to discuss in more depth, but I have no disagreement with what you propose, M4V3R1CK32. Here, I've made some slight edits to your version. (I've bolded my changes.) I moved the items Bluerasberry called out into a new section, with language that I hope is clearly "advisory" rather than "criteria." I tried to reduce the US-centrism (with some arbitrary substitutions of places). I made a few things more specific. Below, I'll mention the other items I think should be added back in (but maybe with some improvements).
A newspaper is also considered notable if it meets two or more of the following criteria:
Editors working to assess or establish the notability of a newspaper are encouraged to seek out coverage in:
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
My comments on each in italics:
This seems potentially useful in some cases, but I can see how it would be problematic under governments that are not supportive of a free press, and that there would be hazy lines. I'm happy to leave this one out. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This one seems important. If the editor of the Springfield Gazette is frequently quoted, noting her position, in larger, unaffiliated regional papers about matters relating to Springfield, that is a tacit but significant endorsement of the paper's editorial acuity when it comes to Springfield. Maybe this can be reworded? I think it should be kept as a criterion. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I notice this one was shortened to "reporting." Is there a reason for that? It seems that a newspaper's significance can derive from any of these areas. Reporting is only one aspect of what newspapers do, and that's reflected in the diversity of awards. By specifying, my intention was merely to rule out advertising awards, but it seems to me that all awards relating to content should be considered relevant. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving this out, on reflection seems redundant of GNG. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant, though I'd imagine if this criterion is met, probably a lot of others that are easier to assess objectively have been met too. Fine with leaving this out. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The following are worth considering, but may not directly contribute to the criteria of the GNG. One way to think about these is that if they pertain, it might be worth some extra effort to find evidence that contributes to the GNG.
This one seems important, but it would need to be much more specific to be useful, and I'm not really sure how to rewrite it. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Same as above. Among other things, "frequently" should be a more specific measurement, and the independence of other outlets should be mentioned. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant. If a newspaper's editor serves on the board of the state newspaper association, that is an indication of the respect held for the publication in the field. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant. Indicates that multiple libraries consider the paper important. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant, but "frequently" should be more specific. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Given the separation into "one or more" and "two or more", proposed by Maverick, I now think maybe the last list above should be preserved, but rolled into either the "two or more" or a new "three or more" category. I do like the improved specificity, it will make this list much more useful. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
The general notability guideline is the default expectation of notability. Special notability criteria like this one often describe the usual ways in which a topic meets GNG, then go beyond and propose some special criteria for that topic.
Here are the currently proposed criteria which I see as an application of GNG:
Here are the currently proposed criteria which I see as newly proposed notability criteria:
Criteria matching GNG are more likely to get approval. Criteria on a basis further removed from GNG take discussion and are more controversial. For more controversial criteria the Wiki community expects to see some published development of the idea including talking through how to determine it and showing examples of where it applies. Other people could have other opinions about this. With just the GNG-related criteria we still offer excellent options for establishing notability.
I will also share the opinion that I think all of these criteria are useful. Wikipedia was established in a time before popular use of consumer databases. Nowadays we can pull a lot of information from consumer databases. Much of this information is vetted as well as what Wikipedia counts as reliable sources, yet Wiki tradition discounts databases as sources. We have some challenges to navigate but publishing this and talking it through is a great idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Suppose we wanted to make a special argument for newspapers to be notable when they failed to meet GNG. Already discussed are special non-traditional criteria, like "The paper is collected by multiple academic libraries or state archives". I think we are getting ready to argue that meeting multiple special criteria can make a case for notability.
I would like to propose some more mundane baseline criteria which we should expect also from the already discussed data model for the infobox. The infobox in discussion has fields for lots of information but some is almost essential and other parts are nice to have. For newspapers which fail to meet GNG, if they are to be considered for special notability criteria, then we have to have the following information backed to a reputable data source:
All of this baseline information is what Wikidata wants. I have mixed feelings about whether we should put this kind of information in Wikidata, and also export it to an infobox in English Wikipedia, and also convert the data into human friendly prose. At the same time I think that many people would agree that the general readers and editors need better access to regional news sources and the most natural way to provide that is through a Wikipedia article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I drafted
In this documentation I raise the issue of conferring notability to a source to have its own Wikipedia article based on its popularity as a citation in Wikipedia article reference sections. I would appreciate any comments on the talk page.
We were discussing this here in WikiProject Newspapers, but I think that this is becoming an issue to discuss for academic journals, databases, and in other contexts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Peteforsyth, thanks for taking the time to put this together! I think this is a really great start and I'd like to make a couple of suggestions after having gone through and assessed several dozen (hundred? They all blended together) unassessed articles.
First, I think we should divide the criteria for notability into two categories, a category for a single criteria that establishes notability, and a category for multiple criteria that establishes notability. So based on the current list, it might look something like this:
A newspaper may also be considered notable if it meets two or more of the following criteria:
Second, I'd like to suggest adding this criteria to the list of multiple criteria:
After reviewing dozens and dozens of stubs for newspapers, I noticed a lot of partisan papers in the list that existed for only a few years (2-3, usually) with low readership, and often published intermittently (2-month run, then nothing for 6 months, followed 3 issues in 3 weeks, then nothing for 4 months, things like that). That does not strike me as being particularly impactful on the world nor particularly notable, so I'd propose we delete those articles if they do not meet the other criteria if this guideline is formally adopted. This wouldn't impact solely the partisan press (though admittedly, articles about partisan papers would probably be the most affected proportionately), and of course, if a paper meets two of the other criteria on the list, then this point is moot.
Third, I think the criteria I listed give the most concrete guidelines for any editor to follow, and so would suggest removing the others from the proposal. It takes away having to discuss things like who is considered a prominent media commentator or what counts as "frequently" syndicated. I'd love to hear your thoughts! M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 23:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've compared them more closely. There are a few items from the earlier list I would like to discuss in more depth, but I have no disagreement with what you propose, M4V3R1CK32. Here, I've made some slight edits to your version. (I've bolded my changes.) I moved the items Bluerasberry called out into a new section, with language that I hope is clearly "advisory" rather than "criteria." I tried to reduce the US-centrism (with some arbitrary substitutions of places). I made a few things more specific. Below, I'll mention the other items I think should be added back in (but maybe with some improvements).
A newspaper is also considered notable if it meets two or more of the following criteria:
Editors working to assess or establish the notability of a newspaper are encouraged to seek out coverage in:
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
My comments on each in italics:
This seems potentially useful in some cases, but I can see how it would be problematic under governments that are not supportive of a free press, and that there would be hazy lines. I'm happy to leave this one out. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This one seems important. If the editor of the Springfield Gazette is frequently quoted, noting her position, in larger, unaffiliated regional papers about matters relating to Springfield, that is a tacit but significant endorsement of the paper's editorial acuity when it comes to Springfield. Maybe this can be reworded? I think it should be kept as a criterion. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I notice this one was shortened to "reporting." Is there a reason for that? It seems that a newspaper's significance can derive from any of these areas. Reporting is only one aspect of what newspapers do, and that's reflected in the diversity of awards. By specifying, my intention was merely to rule out advertising awards, but it seems to me that all awards relating to content should be considered relevant. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving this out, on reflection seems redundant of GNG. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant, though I'd imagine if this criterion is met, probably a lot of others that are easier to assess objectively have been met too. Fine with leaving this out. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The following are worth considering, but may not directly contribute to the criteria of the GNG. One way to think about these is that if they pertain, it might be worth some extra effort to find evidence that contributes to the GNG.
This one seems important, but it would need to be much more specific to be useful, and I'm not really sure how to rewrite it. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Same as above. Among other things, "frequently" should be a more specific measurement, and the independence of other outlets should be mentioned. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant. If a newspaper's editor serves on the board of the state newspaper association, that is an indication of the respect held for the publication in the field. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant. Indicates that multiple libraries consider the paper important. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant, but "frequently" should be more specific. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems relevant. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Given the separation into "one or more" and "two or more", proposed by Maverick, I now think maybe the last list above should be preserved, but rolled into either the "two or more" or a new "three or more" category. I do like the improved specificity, it will make this list much more useful. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)