This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability page. |
|
See also: Wikipedia talk:Relevance (and archives) |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Notability
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Hello. Was wondering what generally is considered sigcov / enough for notability when it comes to schools, in particular business colleges? I don't think I've ever written any articles about institutions or organizations before, but came across two pages that I pondered whether they deserve articles. The two schools in particular are the two entries at Template:Colleges and universities in Delaware missing articles: Hines Private Business College and Thompson's Business College (both former institutions from my home state). Thompson's has some coverage in the state papers, such as [1], [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], as well as many quick mentions; also has a page discussing it in the offline 1958 Delaware Blue Book (which I have). Hines has an article on it here as well as a number of brief mentions, including short pieces such as this on its baseball team. Do the notability folks think that either of these colleges are notable? Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
While this has no place in any presumed binary flow chart, IMO in the fuzzy wp:notability system, if they have a significant NGeo type presence, that can weigh in a bit towards inclusion. But I think that my point is moot for the particular example at hand. North8000 ( talk) 01:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article. WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them. Making a distinction between public and private institutions is therefore completely unnecessary. NCORP is merely meant to emphasise that sources for commercial organisations have to be looked at carefully due to advertising; it is not the deletionist's charter that some editors seem to think it is. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them.That is not the consensus about what NCORP requires, and WP:ORGCRIT makes very clear that the reason NCORP creates a higher standard is because it's very easy to churnalism your way to "notability". voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article- I don't think this reflects overall community consensus. Many topics, such as living people, corporations, numbers, and unreleased films, are subject to WP:SNGs that are more restrictive than GNG, and arguments for retaining a separate article, based on a GNG pass that does not meet those more restrictive standards, are not generally accepted in those domains.
Hi, 331dot, and thanks for helping at WP:Tea house. I wanted to explore a point in a Tea house response you made about Notability in this edit, where you said:
A person can technically meet the notability criteria and still not merit an article because the sources are not there.
In my understanding of Notability, that is a self-contradiction, or else I don't understand what you are saying. If someone meets notability criteria then it means the sources are there, full stop. No sources, no Notability. Afaik, the main reason not to merit an article if the N threshold passes is WP:NOPAGE, but that still requires sources. What am I missing here? Can you elaborate on your comment? (P.S. raising this here, and not at the Tea house in order not to confuse the questioner with technical discussions about fine points of policy.) Mathglot ( talk) 17:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
the sources are not there. All articles must have a claim to significance that meets WP:V, at least, but any stronger statement than that really depends on which notability criterion is being invoked in a specific case. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
(ec)I think that you are trying to read too much into the quoted comment. I think that the general intent was an observation that "you can't make an article without sourcing" and you are analyzing it as if it is a structural statement of a guideline or policy. Not that there aren't ways to read it as a structural statement of wp:notability, but I don't see the usefulness of looking for that. For example, (here I go anyway :-) the top of the wp:notability page says that meeting an SNG is sufficient so satisfy the wp:notability requirement. But most SNG's are generally worded to say that they are mere predictors of the existence of suitable sourcing or GNG sourcing. North8000 ( talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Why aren't they permitted under notability guidelines? I wanted to write an article about Garten of Banban, a video game series that has been discussed extensively on the Internet (often due to its dubious quality) but has not received coverage in major video game news publications. I understand the high requirements for source credibility in topics like science or politics. However, in the case of video games, I would argue that reviews published on YouTube by notable creators with a big outreach are enough evidence for notability. Maybe I'm completely wrong on this but I fail to see how a platform on which a review is published introduces a difference in credibility between what amounts to personal opinions of the reviewer. HallsInRealLife ( talk) 22:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability page. |
|
See also: Wikipedia talk:Relevance (and archives) |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Notability
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Hello. Was wondering what generally is considered sigcov / enough for notability when it comes to schools, in particular business colleges? I don't think I've ever written any articles about institutions or organizations before, but came across two pages that I pondered whether they deserve articles. The two schools in particular are the two entries at Template:Colleges and universities in Delaware missing articles: Hines Private Business College and Thompson's Business College (both former institutions from my home state). Thompson's has some coverage in the state papers, such as [1], [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], as well as many quick mentions; also has a page discussing it in the offline 1958 Delaware Blue Book (which I have). Hines has an article on it here as well as a number of brief mentions, including short pieces such as this on its baseball team. Do the notability folks think that either of these colleges are notable? Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
While this has no place in any presumed binary flow chart, IMO in the fuzzy wp:notability system, if they have a significant NGeo type presence, that can weigh in a bit towards inclusion. But I think that my point is moot for the particular example at hand. North8000 ( talk) 01:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article. WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them. Making a distinction between public and private institutions is therefore completely unnecessary. NCORP is merely meant to emphasise that sources for commercial organisations have to be looked at carefully due to advertising; it is not the deletionist's charter that some editors seem to think it is. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them.That is not the consensus about what NCORP requires, and WP:ORGCRIT makes very clear that the reason NCORP creates a higher standard is because it's very easy to churnalism your way to "notability". voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article- I don't think this reflects overall community consensus. Many topics, such as living people, corporations, numbers, and unreleased films, are subject to WP:SNGs that are more restrictive than GNG, and arguments for retaining a separate article, based on a GNG pass that does not meet those more restrictive standards, are not generally accepted in those domains.
Hi, 331dot, and thanks for helping at WP:Tea house. I wanted to explore a point in a Tea house response you made about Notability in this edit, where you said:
A person can technically meet the notability criteria and still not merit an article because the sources are not there.
In my understanding of Notability, that is a self-contradiction, or else I don't understand what you are saying. If someone meets notability criteria then it means the sources are there, full stop. No sources, no Notability. Afaik, the main reason not to merit an article if the N threshold passes is WP:NOPAGE, but that still requires sources. What am I missing here? Can you elaborate on your comment? (P.S. raising this here, and not at the Tea house in order not to confuse the questioner with technical discussions about fine points of policy.) Mathglot ( talk) 17:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
the sources are not there. All articles must have a claim to significance that meets WP:V, at least, but any stronger statement than that really depends on which notability criterion is being invoked in a specific case. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
(ec)I think that you are trying to read too much into the quoted comment. I think that the general intent was an observation that "you can't make an article without sourcing" and you are analyzing it as if it is a structural statement of a guideline or policy. Not that there aren't ways to read it as a structural statement of wp:notability, but I don't see the usefulness of looking for that. For example, (here I go anyway :-) the top of the wp:notability page says that meeting an SNG is sufficient so satisfy the wp:notability requirement. But most SNG's are generally worded to say that they are mere predictors of the existence of suitable sourcing or GNG sourcing. North8000 ( talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Why aren't they permitted under notability guidelines? I wanted to write an article about Garten of Banban, a video game series that has been discussed extensively on the Internet (often due to its dubious quality) but has not received coverage in major video game news publications. I understand the high requirements for source credibility in topics like science or politics. However, in the case of video games, I would argue that reviews published on YouTube by notable creators with a big outreach are enough evidence for notability. Maybe I'm completely wrong on this but I fail to see how a platform on which a review is published introduces a difference in credibility between what amounts to personal opinions of the reviewer. HallsInRealLife ( talk) 22:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)