Wikipedia talk:Notability

Archives

2005–Sep 2006 (related to page now moved to Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments) Sep–Oct 2006 Oct–Nov 2006 18–25 Nov 2006 Nov 2006–Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006–Jan 2007 Jan 2007–Feb 2007 Feb 2007 March 2007 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

Wikipedia:Relevance

• See also Wikipedia talk:Relevance (and archives)

Insert header here

If a topic isn't notable enough to have an article then why does it still have an article in terms of it's changes history and deletion notice page? I mean I know why those exist of course but that's kind of a paradox none the less. Bigbigbigbigbigbackground (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the history is deleted along with the page, so it's only visible by admins. The deletion discussion is kept visible for reference by the community as to why the article was deleted. If the article is later re-created, we can go back and cite the earlier discussion when considering whether or not to re-delete the article. Also, because of the WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD deletion processes, there isn't always a deletion discussion page. We only keep the ones requiring discussion, so hopefully we don't have to have the same discussions over and over (although we generally do anyway).--Aervanath lives in 04:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

lol at (although generally we do anyway) Bigbigbigbigbigbackground (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bigbigbigbigbigbackground seems to be a vandal that's just trolling here. See his talk page. VG ☎ 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NNC: Randomran/Phil Sandifer

I figure it's better to discuss this than to edit war. (I wouldn't object if Phil felt the need to revert me again, or anyone else. But we do need to get to the bottom of this. I know I've appreciated Phil's efforts to try to find a cgompromise on the bigger issue of the notability of articles.)

• The second paragraph explains how notability affects article content. It refers to an arbcom decision saying, basically, "we don't include every detail", and it's reinforced by a few other guidelines that ask what kinds of factual content are important enough to merit inclusion.

• The first paragraph contradicts the second. It says "notability doesn't affect article content". It's not really substantiated. It betrays common sense, and the arb com decision. And in terms of actual practice, I do see a lot of people saying "that's not really notable" when they remove a little excessive detail and try to produce better summaries.

So I removed the first paragraph. It seems to be the only way to reconcile these two statements. But if someone has another argument or concern, I'm willing to hear it. Randomran (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom case predates this policy page, so I'm inclined to say that it is clear that this policy page is not what was being employed in that arbcom case. Indeed, "notable" does not appear anywhere in the case. The relevant principle in the arbcom case is "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." But that is a matter of undue weight, and drew primarily from our other content policies. To quote the arbitrator reasoning given: "To do otherwise would be an invitation for crackpots and POV pushers." The second paragraph should thus be rephrased noting that concerns related to notability govern inclusion and exclusion of points of view, but that this is primarily covered by WP:NPOV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom never indicated that this was limited to points of view. When they said "summary, not exposition", I think it would be odd if they meant "summarize points of view, but complete exposition of all verifiable facts". I think the arbcom was only expressing common sense when we "summary of accepted knowledge, not complete exposition". In fact, "summary of accepted knowledge" sounds like it covers facts (facts==knowledge), not just points of view. What is an encyclopedia, if not a summary of accepted knowledge, rather than a complete exposition of all possible details? Plus it's an accepted policy that we treat all content with due weight, not just viewpoints. Randomran (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. We're dealing with a four year old arbcom case from an era where the arbcom was explicitly not in the business of setting precedents. I'm really uncomfortable with suggesting that that case establishes an application for a policy page that post-dates the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom seemed to be very cautious to craft their language so they were stating a good general principle going forward. I think you're getting hung up on the guideline page, and ignoring the arbcom guideline itself. I'm sure we could spin the ruling off into its own guideline instead of putting it here -- I'd be okay doing that, even though I think it involves judging the importance (notability) of content. It's kind of a common sense view of what an encyclopedia is: a summary of knowledge, not an exposition. You see people removing or summarizing information on that basis all the time. This isn't particularly controversial, IMO. Randomran (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's fine - mostly I'd like to sever the issue of topical importance from the sort of hard white-line source counting that marks WP:N. Especially since WP:N has tried to detach itself from importance so actively. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, I wouldn't object to that. To me, WP:N is very much about sources, and judging the importance of a topic is secondary (although still a part of it). But it might be hard to tackle both issues at the same time, and pull them apart. A little bit of redundancy between the guidelines gives people a sense of comfort. Randomran (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps reinsert the first paragraph with a transition about how we still judge article content based on importance? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If we reinsert the first paragraph, we'd have to modify it so it doesn't create this weird contradiction of "1: notability doesn't guide article content ... 2: but it still does affect article content." Randomran (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content, but the term is still used in the sense of "importance" to describe..."Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually be comfortable with that. Let me give it a try, and we can refine it from there? Randomran (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. My main concern is keeping the substance of the second paragraph while avoiding any contradictions or confusion. If you have any concerns with what I've done, I'm sure we can refine it. Randomran (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Randomran, I don't agree with your edits to the WP:NNC section. I've given my preferred version. I believe it's fairly similar to the NNC secton that existed in early March. Here is a diff between that version and my version.

I changed from this to this:

• "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article"
• "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether the community is likely to agree that a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article."

I changed from this to this:

• "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines;"
• "Information within an article is not required to meet any notability guideline (with the exception of lists of people);"

And I changed from this to this:

• "instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections."
• "instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policies that information must be verifiable and presented in a neutral fashion, and the guideline advising the citation of reliable sources."

I don't believe inserting text from WP:UNDUE is beneficial, because Wikipedia has over 300 policies and guidelines and they change all the time. --Pixelface (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, my goal isn't to debate substance but to improve clarity. We should compare to the current consensus, rather than the consensus that existed in March. Removing guidelines about the arbcom decision is unhelpful. Removing guidelines about the undue weight of factual information is unhelpful (and hiding it at our policy on points of view is misleading and unclear). Myself and Phil Sandifer were focused on fixing a contradiction. What you're talking about is a substantial change in meaning, and would scrub out important guidelines that have exited for a while. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in Pixelface's changes that are really any radical differences, if not to make the language friendlier, that only serve to improve the guideline. I do think the point that notability guidelines point to community acceptance is important that emphasis this as a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. --M 23:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind changes in wording to improve clarity and friendliness. But Pixelface is comparing his changes to an old version of WP:N from half a year ago. Randomran (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the less said the better, but have no objection to Random's latest [1]. Notability should not pertain to content (my opinion). However, I have long advocated that we pull the bulk of content related guidelines into one manageble place and prune the number of policy and process pages at WP. Cheers to all the hard workers at this page! We are lucky to have such dedication to the project. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Randomran, to be blunt, the current "NNC" section is wrong. It says "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia." Wrong. The notability guidelines don't determine anything. Editors do. Editors decide whether a subject has an article on Wikipedia or not. If many editors give their opinion that a subject is not notable, it's likely the article will be deleted. The notabililty guidelines describe what is considered evidence of notability by the community. Information in an article does not have to be "notable." That is a truth. The current section says "But the term "notability" is still used in the sense of "importance" to describe the level of detail that is appropriate for an encyclopedic summary." No, it isn't. If someone thinks a particular fact is not "important", they will say it's not important, they will not say the fact is "non-notable." There is no importance policy. There is no importance guideline. Then the NNC section contains text from WP:UNDUE, but that assumes that Marskell had the notability of information in mind when he changed WP:UNDUE on May 14, 2006 to "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." This is how a bureaucracy grows, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If readers want to know what "undue weight" means, we can link to WP:UNDUE and they can read about it. But when you copy and paste text from a policy to a guideline, you assume that the text in the policy had wide consensus to begin with. That is not always the case. Policies can be edited by anyone. I will repeat: information in an article does not have to be "notable" in order to stay in an article. That is why the section heading was "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" until you changed it on November 8. And I haven't seen anyone that agreed to change the heading. You said the "first paragraph contradicts the second." That could be because there have been 20 edits to the NNC section since March 14. If you want to argue that information in an article *does* have to be "notable", present your argument. --Pixelface (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion between me and Phil wasn't about substantive changes. We were trying to clear up a contradiction, and we did. You're talking about something much more drastic. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on whether this is an honest effort to build consensus, or playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by reverting/disputing policies that have been around for months, even years. Just remember that there's a right way to make a substantive policy change, and there's a wrong way. Randomran (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is a guideline, not a policy. Second of all, nobody agreed to rename the heading like you did on November 8. I've shown what I think the NNC section should look like. What do you think it should look like? That ANI thread (which resulted in no action by the way) has nothing to do with anything here. If you want to argue that information in an article has to be "notable", present your argument. If you want to argue that this guideline should be based on a ruling by the arbitration committee, present your argument. And go write an article on the subject of notability while you're at it, you might learn something. --Pixelface (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And it appears to me that the discussion between you and Phil *was* about substantive changes. Phil reverted your November 8 edit, saying "That's a rather substantial change." You basically flipped the NNC section around, from saying "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" to "Because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability affects article content." You "cleaned up" a contradiction without even considering if the "contradicting" second paragraph should have been added in the first place. --Pixelface (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Myself and Phil were able to reach a consensus when I suggested he copy-edit for clarity, without changing the essential meaning. I can live with the result. But you can't use a copy-edit for clarity as an opportunity to remove parts of a policy (or guideline) that have had a consensus for half a year. That's not the right way to propose a substantial change in a policy (or guideline). This behavior is becoming a troubling pattern. Randomran (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Randomran, the talk pages of a guideline is for discussing how to improve the guideline. If you and Phil Sandifer agreed on something, great. You made an edit to WP:N and Phil Sandifer reverted you, saying "That's a rather substantial change." Phil Sandifer presented some language, you said you'd give it a try, and you added that language to WP:N.

I disagree with the changes you made to WP:N. On November 8, you changed "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" to "Notability of article content." I also disagree with many of the changes to NNC since March.

I put in language that I think would be the best. It's extremely similar to the language that existed in NNC before it was known as NNC, before the text from WP:UNDUE was added, etc. The "NNC" shortcut refers to "Notability does not limit article content."

Guidelines can be edited by anyone and one does not have to propose their changes on the talk page first. That's why you could make the edit you did. The diffs of me editing WP:NOT you've given have nothing to do with how to improve this guideline. You're the one who changed "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content." How does that improve Wikipedia:Notability? --Pixelface (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See below. If you disagree with many of the changes since March, then be 100% explicit and start a discussion on that. (I disagree, and basically support the changes since March.) That's a very different discussion than disagreeing with edits since November 4th, which is what I thought you initially stated. I feel that embedding a discussion about a mass revert over half a year in a smaller discussion about fixes since November 4th is confusing, and confounds the issue. Randomran (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going down an unproductive line of discussion. The way I see it, there are a few options to resolve the wording:

• Revert back to the last consensus from November 4th, before myself and Phil came along - Pros: it has clear consensus. / Cons: it's unclear, even contradictory.
• Keep the more recent consensus, that attempts to resolve the lack of clarity - Pros: it's more clear than November 4th / Cons: did it change the meaning from November 4th, and thus disrupt consensus?
• Something else - Pros: could be more clear while preserving the meaning from November 4th. / Cons: nobody has proposed it yet.

We're talking about two different things, because we're focusing on a wording issue, while you're proposing to revert half a year worth of consensus. I don't want to confound the two issues. If you want to propose a much bigger change, I want you to be 100% explicit about it. Start a new discussion. Randomran (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, the language having to do with undue weight, which was introduced in March, could be removed, which would remove the "contradiction" you were trying to clear up. These are the edits to the NNC section since March 14, the edits that introduced the contradiction. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] --Pixelface (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And like I said, I disagree with that, as do the numerous editors who added and refined that part of the guideline. You're going to need to build a consensus for that. The other issue is that I think it's misleading to characterize this as completely my doing, when I've only been trying to clarify the contradiction. I'm not saying that because I'm accusing you of bad faith. I'm only mentioning it because it misled Masem into thinking that you were making a modest change. That makes this discussion really unclear, and prevents us from getting to the root problem. The best place to start is to create a new section for a new discussion. Randomran (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be consensus to change "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" before it is changed. I don't think I've characterized the changes to NNC as all your doing. When I said "I don't agree with your edits to the WP:NNC section", perhaps I should have been more specific — I was referring to these 2 edits by you. [29] [30] I think my wording of NNC is an improvement.

You said "The second paragraph explains how notability affects article content." You said "The first paragraph contradicts the second." You said "So I removed the first paragraph."[31] Instead of figuring out when the "contradiction" came about, I looked at a previous version of NNC that I knew had no such contradiction. I based my wording of NNC on the language that existed before the stuff about "undue weight" was added. Dorftrottel added a link to WP:UNDUE in March. After that, the paragraph about undue weight was added by you. I see that another editor removed it. You re-added it. "Undue weight" is not about notability.

On September 23, Kanodin "overhauled" NNC. I disagree with that edit as well. If Masem was misled by what I said, I apologize. I said "I've given my preferred version. I believe it's fairly similar to the NNC secton that existed in early March." The root of this is that information does not have to be notable to stay in an article. The notability guidelines list evidence that the community considers evidence of notability. The notability guidelines have to do with article topics. The notability guidelines don't place limits on the information that an article can contain (except when it comes to lists of people). --Pixelface (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not trying to lay blame here, so you don't need to defend yourself. I'm just trying to explain how this discussion is unclear, because you've mashed together a bunch of topics (intentionally or not). Starting the discussion over will be more clear, as we can talk about actual changes to the guideline rather than copy-edits. It will probably be clearer to other participants what the heck we're talking about as well, which is maybe why nobody else is eager to weigh in. Randomran (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, these are my questions:

• 1) Should the NNC section link to WP:UNDUE?[32]
• 2) Should the NNC section contain language from WP:UNDUE?[33]
• 3) Should the heading "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" be changed?[34]
• 4) Should the NNC section contain "However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content."[35]
• 5) Should the NNC section contain "But the term "notability" is still used in the sense of "importance" to describe the level of detail that is appropriate for an encyclopedic summary"[36]
• 6) Should the NNC section contain "Because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability affects article content."?[37]

My answers are:

• 1) No, "undue weight" does not have to do with the notability of topics.
• 2) No, "undue weight" does not have to do with the notability of topics. I guess this thread from May is relevant to this.
• 3) No, because notability guidelines don't limit article content (except when speaking of lists of people).
• 4) No. There may be editors who remove information from an article because they think the information is "non-notable", but no policy or guideline should condone such a practice. I suppose that sentence came out of this thread in September.
• 5) No, notability does not equal importance. That editors classify details as "important" and "unimportant" is troublesome already. We shouldn't encourage editors to classify details as "notable" and "non-notable."
• 6) No. Information does not have to be notable in order to remain in an article.

I'm willing to maybe budge on 1). I suppose the NNC section could mention undue weight, but I really think that linking to WP:UNDUE in a notability guideline will only confuse editors — that is why I wrote "information must be verifiable and presented in a neutral fashion" and linked to WP:NPOV in general. --Pixelface (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting that we scrub "treat factual information with due weight" from WP:N and hide it in a policy about points of view and neutrality -- which is confusing and even misleading. Your proposed changes would also remove the guideline that an encyclopedia is not about "complete exposition". These are statements that have stuck around in WP:N for a while because they're good rules, and carry a lot of common sense. One of them is even a decision from the arbitration committee. Randomran (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pixel has a point here, however. The primary issue of concern here are coverage of topics which highly favor one aspect over another. This is presently best spelled out in WP:NPOV, even though there it is a sore thumb. Regardless, however, WP:WEIGHT does not specifically call in WP:N; any part of a topic coverage that is given too much weight is to be balanced out, and that can include parts that are notable. To the strict letter, notability does not directly affect WEIGHT, it is more the case that WEIGHT should take into account how much information is gleaned from primary sources relative to what is taken from secondary sources. Thus, to the purest sense, all WP:N should state is that notability does not limit the content of a topic's coverage - we do not require every subtopic to be notable on its own as long as its part of the notable topic coverage. We should state that other policies and guidelines may require a balance the notable aspects of a topic verses other details, but that is outside the realm of WP:N. We should still link to WP:WEIGHT in this, however, as the primary policy for this, but again, notability is one consideration of that. --M 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the real solution here is to spin off an aspect of UNDUE from NPOV. Part of the problem here is that NPOV is a Foundation Issue policy, and undue weight in the sense that we're describing it here isn't. What happened was that the NPOV aspect of undue weight - excessive attention given to obscure minority viewpoints - bloated to cover things that have nothing to do with NPOV. Were those aspects of UNDUE to be spun off elsewhere, perhaps along with these aspects of notability, both pages might be improved. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that, as this argument runs similar in course with what's happening in PLOT. I think it is some type of policy, as good topic coverage should balance every aspect of the coverage, but it's not a statement you can rework as a NOT statement. I would almost consider flipping NPOV around, with the actually part about being a neutral POV being one aspect of balanced coverage, but that would be difficult to align with the pillars. There is something to be said about that. --M 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If we look at the history of the section, Pixelface is right that this section grew from the "rib" of WP:NPOV. There was stuff about due weight of factual information that really didn't fit with the policy on points of view. It ended up here, and it grew here because it makes sense here. Nobody really disputes the guideline, and it has consensus: we treat topics in accordance with their significance. People *do* talk about aspects of articles being non-notable, and clean-up sections that are just too detailed and "weighty". I mean, the guideline does describe actual practice, common sense, and even an arbitration committee ruling. It's a good guideline. We're really just arguing as to whether we should bury it in the jungle of our standards, at arbcom, and at WP:NPOV, or whether we should put it here. So where does this really belong?
Again, I have to maintain that burying it is a bad idea. It's unclear, it's misleading, it's unhelpful. And when you look at the guideline -- today's version or the version from early November -- words like "importance" and "significance" indicate that this *is* related to notability. Where do WP:IMPORTANCE and WP:SIGNIFICANCE link? To this guideline! And a useful measuring stick for how much information we draw out from our sources -- primary and secondary -- is what reliable third-party sources have covered. That makes the relationship to WP:N strong. (Although it's indirect. This definitely doesn't mean that every fact needs coverage in reliable third-party sources. Again, it's just a measuring stick.)
I'm all for changes in wording to make it more clear. But scrubbing it is a bad idea. It flies in the face of practice, common sense, and even an arbitration committee ruling. And it hides a useful guideline that generally has consensus in spirit, even if there may be some debate over the wording. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mayors of small towns

See Minden, Louisiana. There are several articles about mayors of Minden who have no other notability. Is being the mayor of a small town sufficient notability to have an article? 02:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably. See WP:POLITICIAN.--Aervanath lives in 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant coverage / sources

In order for it to be true that Wikipedia is not a directory, the notability guideline needs to exclude the possibility that a single reference—even if it addresses a subject directly and in detail—not be sufficient if that source is any directory or exhaustive list. Many reliable sources, such as business directories, geographical sources, and many other categories of reference material, go out of their way to be specific and detailed, and literally comprehensive. Permitting citation of such a work as the sole or even main demonstration of notabily completely flies in the face of WP:NOTDIR. Clarification could be added to the definition or footnote of either "significant coverage" or "sources". Any thoughts? 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines already cover this. Here are just five examples.

• General notability guidelines, definition of "Significant coverage", footnote 1 says "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (January 6, 1992). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian. ) is plainly trivial."
• Wikipedia:Notability (people), "Basic Criteria", footnote 6 says "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.".
• Wikipedia:Notability (music), "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", criteria one, under the "exceptions" you find "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories"
• Wikipedia:Notability (books), "This page in a nutshell", footnote 1 says "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment."
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "Primary criteria", under the "except" section it says "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories."

Are you saying this needs to be made more clear? Or are you saying that subject specific guidlines need to be more specific towards Wikipedia is not a directory policy, "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera..."? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying both. Here's an example from a recent AfD. The article references the subject's inclusion in Jane's Simulation and Training Systems. In the nomination, the nominating editor (me) wrote "Jane's is meant to be a comprehensive compendium, which doesn't limit its lists to notable entries, so [the subject's inclusion there] doesn't demonstrate notability".

Another (I believe quite experienced) editor replied, "I don't know where the nominator gets the idea that Jane's doesn't count as a reliable source for notability purposes - the existence of such a source is what counts, not the motives of its publisher".

Neither footnote 1 to the GNG nor the overly narrow definition of "trivial" coverage in business directories captures this, and (contrary to the point suggested by the commentator to the AfD just mentioned), I think the motives of the publisher are highly relevant towards establishing whether coverage in a source is evidence of notability. Specifically, if there is no editorial judgment required for inclusion in a source, that source does not demonstrate that any knowledgeable person in any field believes the subject to be notable.

In the product description for Jane's Simulation and Training Systems, it specifically states "this comprehensive reference provides details of the individual component systems, image generation, visual display including head-mounted (VR) displays, motion systems, controls, sound, trackers and touch-sensitive devices." However, the coverage in this sort of publication is extremely detailed (not like phone numbers, schedules, etc.). So even coverage with a high level of detail doesn't always provide a clue as to the subject's notability.

These guidelines (or their margins, anyway) seem to work by example rather than by principle, and it seems to me that "editorial discretion" or "editorial judgment" is a principle that actually helps in many cases where there is no enumerated example exactly on point.

(Note: I hope it's clear that I'm not suggesting that such sources are not useful for verifying facts about subjects of WP articles.)

Thoughts? 00:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what it's an exhaustive list of. If it's a list of things that are essentially always notable, and the source provides significant information enough to write at least the stub of an article, the notability is demonstrated. Obviously more sources should be searched for, but that one specific source should be sufficient. A list of, for example, people who served in a some country's national parliament, but about a person for whom we have no other information source at present, is fully sufficient to show notability. In the example given above, Jane's various editions are in practice limited to those things for which there is some significant presence in the field being covered, and have been considered the best RS for many of them for a century now. I'd accept anything in a Jane's as notable. DGG (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would really like some other people's views on this. DGG's logic is:

1. Jane's (for example) covers only things for which there is a significant presence in a field.
2. Things that have a significant presence in any field whatsoever are notable for the purposes of WP.

Both of these propositions are flawed. The first proposition is contradicted by the language of Jane's own product descriptions. Take this example from the product description for Jane's Ammunition Handbook:

Jane's Ammunition Handbook is the authoritative reference guide for military and police ammunition in service, in stock and under development, from pistol rounds to artillery. This comprehensive resource provides informed analysis of product developments and commercial history, as well as technical descriptions, specifications and illustrations for ease of recognition. With Jane's Ammunition Handbook, your procurement and research needs are also supported through the original manufacturers' details and expert reference tables to confidently confirm small arms identification.

Key contents include:

• Small arms
• Projected grenades
• Riot Control
• Cannon
• Tank and Anti-Tank
• Naval and Coast Defence
• Mortars
• Field Artillery and Rockets
• Fuses
• Cartridge Identification Tables

Note that this is only the "key" content—there's more! Clearly Jane's intends to provide reference information (presumably detailed) for even non-significant ammunition in order to be a "comprehensive" guide for various purposes (such as forensic work, where every known bullet needs to be cataloged).

But even for a type of ammunition for which there is a "significant presence in the field" is non-notable. If there are 100 different types and brands of .45 ammunition in widespread use in police departments around the world (there are 42 pages of handgun ammunition described in detail, with numerous entries for a page, so this doesn't seem unlikely), or twenty different types and brands of 81mm mortar shells (the book has 25 pages, so this seems like a significant underestimate) in use in militaries around the world, then each of them merits its own article under this logic. Common sense (at least mine) dictates that this is not a desirable outcome.

The example from the above AfD is no less troubling. Jane's has 118 products (by my count). Many of these are traditional directories works (i.e., lists of detailed entries), although many are not (there are lots of handbooks). The ones I've inspected are quite lengthy. Each product summary I've reviewed, states that the product seeks to be "comprehensive"--intentionally lacking in editorial selection. It is inconceivable to me that every entity or product detailed in Jane's Aircraft Component Manufacturers, Jane's Airports and Handling Agents - Far East, Asia and Australasia, or Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades (just to name some of the "A"s) should have a WP entry, or that a WP entry about such an entity or product should withstand CSD, Prod, or AfD solely (or even largely) on the basis of its inclusion therein. 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

← Ok, now I am confused at what the question is. Are you asking if a catalog that contains a "list" of entires can be used to verify that the "item" exists? Or are you asking if a catalog that contains a "list" of entires can be used to establish notability in order for that entry to have an article on Wikipedia? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the guideline be explicit that notability cannot be established through inclusion in a list that explicitly states its intention to be "comprehensive" or "exhaustive"--regardless of how detailed the list entry is, or however well-established the publisher of the list. Those lists can of course be used for verification of information (and indeed are ideal for that purpose). but (I suggest) without editorial discretion (which is disclaimed in the case of a compendium that adverts to be comprehensive or exhaustive), notability cannot be inferred. Is that any more clear? 06:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it. This is more of a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources in that case. And I see nothing specific about catalogs being a reliable source or at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples so it something should be addressed. I would suggest making a new topic at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources with a clearly defined suggestion of wording. Perhaps a footnote to the "Usage by other sources" section it could be added that would follow one of the above mentioned footnotes. Thanks got pointing this out. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. WP:Reliable sources adverts to being primarily about verifiability and no original research. Of course it is also referenced from WP:N. However, I don't dispute the utility of such sources for verification or non-originality of research--only for demonstrating notability. And the by conventional meaning of the words, these are "reliable sources". So I'd say that really, this is a notability issue. I'm not suggesting this language be adopted, but what I mean is that notability criterion should mean, "If a topic has received significant, editorially selective coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article," with a footnote on "editorially selective" referencing the concepts above. 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

← Using a source to verify somehting in not the same as using a source to establish notability. Going back up to what we both have said about using a catalog to verify somehting exists - that does not seem the be the core issue. What needs to be established is if a subject appears in a catalog can that listing be used to establish notability. Before any discussion gets to that point it should be established if the source is ok, and that is what would send it to WP:Reliable sources, which is a guideline. All guidelines will lead back to Wikipedia Policies, but it is the guidlines the go more into detail based on subject. As long as any guideline on a catalog being allowed or disallowed as a source falls into line with policy is would be fine. Notability of a subject may parallel that subject being notable as a source but does not automatically mean the subject is, or can be used as, a source to establish notability. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a source-by-source review, but rather a principle that even acknowledged "reliable sources" that exhaustive in nature not be cited for notability. I'm not sure how discussions on the reliablity of certain sources advances these disussions. The examples I mentioned are all uncontroversial as "reliable sources" (Jane's, as DGG alluded to, is the gold-standard reference for the topics it coverers. While I don't suggest all directories are "reliable sources"), it seems to make more sense to discuss the principle at issue in the context of acknowledged "exhaustive" reliable sources rather than getting side-tracked on which "exhaustive" sources are deemed to be reliable. 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of this as "Navin Johnson Notability." The phone book can be argued to be a reliable secondary source, but just because your name is in it that doesn't make you notable. I believe that "substantial coverage" should explicitly exclude entries in directories. Either that or you could think of a directory as a primary source and the question is moot. SDY (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are miscategorizing Jane's from the very beginning. The Jane's Guides cannot reasonably be classified as directories. They contain far too much detail. They should each be considered as a specialized encyclopedia on their respective topics. And, to quote from What Wikipedia is, "incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" summarizes what the notability guideline should try to include. Would we allow an article to cite an entry from Britannica to be used to establish notability? If so, then Jane's should be considered equally valid. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 01:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a terrific example of reasoning from the conclusion. The unsubstantiated premise of the argument is that Jane's publications are specialized encyclopedias, and from that the conclusion is drawn that all of their entries are encyclopedic. Not a very helpful syllogism in the discussion. My claim (based not on rhetoric, but on specific examples that are enumerated above) is that (at least many of) Jane’s publications are directory-like. To generate an informed discourse on this topic, it may be helpful for commentators to review sample pages from ABC Aerospace Directory or Ammunition Handbook (registration, but no payment required) prior to commenting on nature the entries in such publications. While I have made this point repeatedly before, many of Jane's products specifically claim to be "comprehensive", explicitly disclaiming editorial discretion in the selection of entries. 02:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)