User talk:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines

Request for suggestions?
The goal here is to remove everything that is subjective from WP:N, i.e. we eliminate all of the words determined subjective per User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not except for reliable (I think there is a level of common sense objectivity regarding "reliable") and re-write it as something that is a start at coming up with an entirely objective standard of inclusion. Suggestions are welcome below, but I want to come up with something that is based on other guidelines and policies that removes the subjectivity of "notability", yet at the same time actually accomplishes what really would be a reasonable compromise between inclusionists and deletionists. Also, I want to avoid something that is needlessly convoluted and confusing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think paper encyclopedias have 'stub' class articles, so don't think it should have anything to do with article inclusion criteria. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! -- I like the concept of notability as it stands at the moment, I'm afraid. It is subjective in that it allows some room for discussion on what it means with regard to particular cases, and I think that's a good thing.  Sorry.--S Marshall  Talk /Cont  02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "subjectivity" is actually your core objection. Your proposed guideline is more of an effort to be extremely inclusive, and describing it as a compromise between inclusionists and deletionists is misleading at best. How about a nice direct statement:
 * ''For a subject to be included as an article, it must be covered directly and in detail by multiple reliable independent sources that do not constitute local coverage or a directory listing.
 * Independent specifically excludes all sources created by licensed by, approved by, or compensated by the subject, or, in the case of a fictional topic, created by, licensed by, approved by, or compensated by the publishers, creators, authors, or illustrators of the subject.
 * Multiple specifically excludes the numbers zero and one.
 * Local means coverage which is restricted to a relatively small geographic area, such as a city, county, borough, or university.
 * Directory listing specifically excludes restaurant listings, censuses, atlases, and television guides.
 * That's a fairly objective test, and is far more effective at excluding undesirable content than yours.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a few things to like here. We drop the vague terminology of "notability", and focus more on research. And we replace the "significance" requirement with a pretty decent standard: if you can't write more than a stub worth, then it should probably be merged or redirected. But I strongly disagree with shifting towards mere reliability of the sources. There has to be some mention of words like "independent" and "secondary" sources, not just reliable sources, in order to be consistent with WP:OR and WP:V. I also think that independence of reliable sources tends to help us avoid content taht would violate what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, as well as WP:NPOV from a non-independent perspective. Independence is a bare minimum requirement, and that's a consensus that's cemented in a lot of our policies. Randomran (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Kww's direct statement, apart from "independence", which is too much creep. The problem is that people see notability as an absolute defence to the point that it's hard to get actually problematic material off the encyclopedia. Of course, it should stay a guideline; there will be a few cases where we should bend the rules. Sceptre (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Two" specifically excludes the numbers zero and one.—I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to tag this with Fact just for a laugh. ;) Pagra shtak  18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the current notability system, as mentioned in other debates of mine
 D r e a m Focus  02:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A screenplay writer who wrote several movies, one of which made over a hundred million dollars at the box office, is not notable, and can have his article deleted, as what happened with Temple Mathews.
 * Being on the bestsellers list, does not make a book notable. No matter how many confirmed sales a book has, it is not notable unless it gets a review, and there are many types of books that mainstream media does not review.  This could be because they have a limited number of books to review that week, and can't include them all, or simply don't like that genre, or their parent company publishes other books they are told to review instead that week.  I brought this up on the notability page for books already.
 * Being published as a regular series in a magazine that has a reasonable high number of sells, does not make you notable under the current system.
 * Certain types of media will never be reviewed in newspapers or magazines, since their target audience doesn't read such things. Thus the system is unfair to them.  This includes manga and comic books.
 * I don't think commercialism = notability. Probably the best way to avoid the biases of Wikipedians on what's notable is to go with what reliable people have found notable enough to write about. Besides, how would you write a complete article that meets WP:NPOV and WP:OR without reliable third-party sources? I think you might be put off by some inexperience dealing with the notability requirement, because sources like the Anime News Network constitute a reliable third-party source, and so a lot of manga would pass notability with flying colors. Randomran (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in many cases it doesn't. It list anything people load up to it, so it doesn't count unless someone decides they have a decent review article somewhere.  The rules for that one seem to change from day to day, in different AFD debates I've seen, the same people arguing both sides at times.  If its featured in Shonen Jump, the manga should be notable, just as it is on the Japanese wikipedia.  And why is commercialism not notable?  Regular encyclopedias don't consider Naruto, Inuyasha, and Gantz notable, but wikipedia does.  You have far more popular culture articles than scientific and historical ones.  If a significant number of people keep buying every issue of something that comes out, then its notable to them.  And being notable to 200,000 fans should be considered far more important than being notable to two reviewers in a newspaper that gets far less subscribers than that.   D r e a m Focus  02:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If people are changing the rules from day to day to be deliberately exclusionary, I'd be pretty pissed. I keep hearing about this. But I've never actually seen it. It's the kind of thing that should be taken to RFC if it persists, because it's not fair. Randomran (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I Googled but could only find this recent post about it. Cute Guy AFD Even though the Anime News Network seems to have nothing more than the title of it, simply by being mentioned by it, seems to make it notable.  Previously people have claimed that it wasn't, and you had to have an actual review for something not just a token brief mention that it exist.  Strange.  But, whatever.  I'll be searching there for links for every single manga nominated for deletion from now on.   D r e a m Focus  03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the third-party source requirement is actually a pretty low threshold, no matter what anyone tells you. It just asks: has somebody somewhere written something about this topic? Nobody is asking for a published book devoted to the topic, let alone a CNN exclusive. (And if they do ask, call them on it, or take it to the reliable source noticeboard.) It's really just a check to make sure that Wikipedians aren't the first to explore a topic, let alone to offer their perspective on a topic. A little bit of research goes a long way. Randomran (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little higher of a threshold than Randomran paints it, but not much. A lot of what appears to be changing rules is different experience levels of editors showing up at AFD, and different levels of taking our guidelines seriously. If you take WP:N seriously, one passing mention at ANN isn't going to cut it. WP:N requires multiple reliable sources, and that that those sources take the time to discuss the topic in detail. Still, that means one review in ANN gets any manga halfway there. A one-line mention doesn't do anything at all according to the guideline, but you will always find people that try to claim that a one-line mention is sufficient.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Should a massive number of Google hits, listing reviews on 40 thousand blogs and forums and personal webpages, count as notable? Past debates have shown most people think otherwise.  I remember my Neon Genesis Evangelion Re-Take article being deleted, because it didn't matter how many fans were posting their love of the well written series, it wasn't getting any notable third party coverage anywhere.  And reading any of the blog reviews shows they are written by different people, not just some randomly generated thing from someone trying to Google bomb.  I found links to stores that listed how well it was selling for them, and many places it was sold, and plenty of reviews on blogs, but no third party media others considered valid.  Other series that have a lot of hits in blogs, and reviews posted by people on Amazon and other places it is sold, matter not either.  Nor does the thousand or so sites that seem to offer copies of the fansubs for series not yet released in this country.  We really need a list of every single website, newspaper, magazine, or whatever, which counts as a legitimate reference, for easy access.  It'd make it easier to find things, you knowing where to search, and would prevent any repeating debates.   D r e a m Focus  04:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, it's not enough for notability. Not because they're not evidence of importance, but because it becomes impossible to write an article that meets WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS from just a bunch of google hits. I'm more of a video games guy, but I know that we don't need CNN: we just need gamespy, or gamespot, or other sources that are considered highly reliable among gamers. We actually document these at WP:VG/RS. I don't think there's an equivalent list of sources for comics or manga, but there should be, and the sources exist. Randomran (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence of importance? Most articles aren't actually important, it just entertainment.  How about we just say if you can confirm to a reasonable doubt that at least 40 thousand people have read it, then it counts?  Or whatever a fair number of have would be.  And don't game review shows and magazines review games from companies that are paying them for ad space, and alter the review ratings so not to give anything too negative to their customers?  I read on Penny Arcade once, that that is a common practice, they mentioning it after a writer complained about them changing his game rating for something he reviewed.  And if gamespy or gamespot review an obscure game they do give negative reviews to, does it become notable because they mentioned it, even if no one bought it?   D r e a m Focus  04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't care too much whether it's hugely important or "just entertainment". Really, we just need the kinds of sources that will let us write an article that meets WP:V and WP:OR, not to mention other policies. We can't do that with a simple sales figure, or a bunch of google hits, or a high-traffic web-forum. I'll admit that what we consider reliable sources aren't necessarily neutral, and are certainly not divine arbiters of truth. But the alternative of using *any* source is much much worse. Randomran (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fictional works are sources. Information from fictional works is verifiable. Fictional works are published. You can write an article that meets V and OR just by citing the fictional work, like Fictional history of Spider-Man shows. --Pixelface (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dream Focus did not get the key point. Whatever inclusion or notability guidelines to be used those manga articles are all failures. Sure they may get on board thanks to evolution of policies and guidelines but their capabilities to prove that their content isn't bullshit is close to zero. Without those third party references that many view with contempt, you may prove that it exists but you can't prove what it is about. Delationists will have fun destroying those articles arguing that their contents fail verifiability. We will found ourself with a collection of empty husks. You may argue that websites containing information about those manga are plenty but all fail to be RS as they are either fan sites, fan forums or websites hosting illegal scanlation of those manga. To conclude. Keeping an article in Wikipedia is meaningless if you can't keep its content. The balance of power within Wikipedia will certainly change in favor of more inclusion if the content verifibility issue is adressed with Strong Rules. --KrebMarkt 10:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision 1
Okay, based on all of the above, I have revised it as follows. By the way, for stuff like grammar, feel free to correct me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and incorporated stuff we see in WP:RS, just as a matter of clarity. You defined the word "independent", but didn't actually use it, so that's fixed. It's a decent start, but there are legitimate problems with existing policy here, and we don't want to start circumventing WP:OR and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My one concern with the third-party, reliable source bit is do we consider The New York Times, CBS, etc. reliable? Generally speaking, we would say, yes; however, there are instances where a primary source actually proves more reliable than even the most established of secondary sources.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The test is whether they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so we look for editorial review. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So yeah, sources can be wrong from time to time, but it doesn't mean they're unreliable. Randomran (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't, for example, consider published strategy guides true primary sources, rather on the fence to a degree, but arguably more reliable than say a rumor on Kotaku. Also, you'll note my feeling of spinout lists. In some cases, editors strongly reject efforts to add development and reception sections. Consider, for example, List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series an article I doubt would be deleted (and which shouldn't). But see what happened when I tried to add a reception section using to start with a source from a published magazine at Talk:List_of_downloadable_songs_for_the_Rock_Band_series/Archive_1.  It does at times seem like having to have development and reception sections for lists is excess or redundant to the development/reception sections in the main articles.  Whereas the spinoff lists, which are sort of sub-articles, provide the extended detail concerning songs, weapons, or characters, usually the development and reception is sufficient in the main articles.  I do NOT see such lists as "game guide", but rather the video game equivalent of a periodic table of elements or list of Academy Award winners.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Python_reticulatus#Debate_regarding_length_claims_made_by_various_zoos has a recent debate, which came down to the fact that major news organizations kept repeating bad information, they not doing the same thorough checking they would for other types of stories. Therefore only scientific journals should be used, since in this case, the media always seemed to get it wrong. Anything involving people, they do fact checking for legal reasons, but for everything else, its probably just whatever sounded like a good news story.  D r e a m Focus  04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strategy guides can sometimes be written as primary sources (like extended instruction manuals) or as secondary sources (someone analyzing the game and noticing something that the primary author did not explicitly say). But either way, they're not independent: they're licenced and authorized by the game author/publisher/copyrightholder. Sure, they can verify certain kinds of information, but they're not enough for an article to meet WP:V and WP:OR. (Lists are a separate issue, and I think it's the kind of thing we're gonna have to settle separately. Better to get compromise on half the issue than to overreach and get nothing.) Randomran (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think lists have the potential to be the real half-way point of compromise, i.e. deletionists don't want the stuff covered, inclusionists do, so instead of thousands of separate articles, we have hundreds of lists. We don't have as detailed coverage as the inclusionists want, but we don't just red link everything a la the deletionists, i.e. both sides concede something and both sides gain something.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have a point there. But let's start with working out the rules for articles in general, and come up with a softer requirement for lists later, once we've hit a deadlock between the sides -- which we inevitably will. Randomran (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think given the participation on this page in my userspace even by some who are not exactly fans of mine shows that there might be a willingness to at least try coming up with something other than "notability", which I suppose is encouraging, i.e. maybe there's hope we can come up with an alternative that is acceptable. As I said elsewhere, not everyone has to be won over, so if there's a few holdouts, so be it, but I think we may have a real start here.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's always been possible for both sides to reach out to each other, if they could get passed something other than "notability and only notability" versus "scrap or demote notability". It's easy to do that when someone makes a fresh start. But it's usually undone when someone comes in, poisons the well, and both sides retreat to polemics. Someone will WP:BAIT you. Maybe by calling something cruft. Or maybe an inclusionist ally will WP:BAIT a deletionist by saying "I will accept nothing less than scrapping notability". And then things will unravel. The challenge is learning to keep your hand reached out when your opponents smack it away, without letting them intimidate you either. When people try to walk all over you, keep pushing for a fair compromise, no more no less. Keep your eyes on the middle. Randomran (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully people will look beyond personal differences and avoid trying to bait me and hopefully because I initiated this particular page my inclusionist friends will not torpedo me. I think everyone can reasonably agree that we should have some kind of standards for practical reasons.  I can dig that and if we can get past the subjective criteria at least than that is a tremendous start.  Again, though, I really do think that maybe we should be keeping the list issue in mind as a path to compromise.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have control over what others say or do, let alone who ends up finding this page. Someone *will* come along and try to disrupt the compromise. They win if you fight fire with fire. They lose if you ignore them, or force them to offer some kind of middle ground. Like I said, don't take the bait. Randomran (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I sincerely believe that what I am proposing here has a realistic shot of allowing for a middle ground. By eliminating the whole subjective "notability" thing, I think we have something that can essentially accomplish the same overall idea that the notability guideline sought to accomplish, but doesn't have the sound of "I don't like it/non-notable" versus "I like it/notable".  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I sincerely believe you're right. But then I sincerely believe that virtually the same approach has been tried before, and has been derailed as people retreat to the same old tired debates. Randomran (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. For me, "notability" has always been one of two major sticking points here.  If there were two words that push me away from a negotiating table they are "cruft" and "non-notable."  "Cruft" because, to just be blunt and not beat around the bush, it just sounds idiotic, i.e. not something a mature adult would say.  And "non-notable" because it sounds condescending and subjective.  Both smack of "I don't like it" and as such makes me feel, well, so what about what you don't like?  I am not a fan of piercings and tattoos, but to each his own.  And when it comes to knowledge, what's notable to one person is not notable to someone else.  And vice versa, but because it's notable to someone, well, that matters more to me than anything else.  So, even when I wanted to maybe give compromising over "notability" a try, it was painful, but given my argument to keep history in AfD, that I would be willing to even go so far as to write in my userspace a proposal ask you, Gavin, etc. to come here and comment has to be something of a real start here.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not winning when someone pushes you away from the negotiating table, even if you think you're standing up for your beliefs. If I wanted to disrupt this compromise, the best thing I could do is take it off topic, or get one side or another onto topics where compromise is impossible. Watch for that. Randomran (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am indeed willing to compromise on a inclusion guideline. "Notability," however, sparks too much of an emotional reaction that I don't think I can see that term as anything less than a dangerous ideology for the many reason espoused elsewhere.  As for an inlcusion guideline a la what we have here, then if if amended further, I think there is a realistic chance I can get on board.  But remember, we don't have to appease extremists.  Of course, I do like the idea of the inclusion policy template at Extreme article inclusion... :)  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can probably theorize on this for days :) But an emotional reaction is exactly what everyone needs to avoid, and ignore in other people. Just as dangerous is accusing the other side of being dangerous. You won't build a consensus with language like that, even if you have the best of intentions and manners. Randomran (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Each individual topic needs to be covered in independent sources that cover the topic directly and in detail. Each and every one. The exception for "spinouts" is unacceptable. If someone wants to write an article on the BFG9000], sources on "Doom" aren't enough. There have to be sources that directly examine the BFG9000 in detail. Removing the "local" restriction is equally deadly ... otherwise, every mom-and-pop business in the world can have a very difficult to verify but not very important article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as those business have enough information written about them to have a history and reception section, then that's okay. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's quite an assertion: actually, they are completely unacceptable. The effort to verify an article on every mom-and-pop business in the world greatly outweighs the value of having articles on them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt we would have "every" such store, because not everyone will try to have an article on their store. Moreover, not every store is even discussed in the local media in detailed enough fashion from which we can writes articles.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of sources
WP:V is our core policy on inclusion, and that doesn't say there has to be a minimum of two sources. One rock solid source is fine. A good number of Featured Articles have been built up from one source. SilkTork  *YES! 08:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you coming around to realising that searching for an alternative is fruitless. To start with, the inclusion criteria needed to satisfy WP:V as suggested by SilkTork are at least one independent source. The source can't be a telephone directory, so you need at least one independent secondary source. To ensure you source is not biased, then you need to have at least two sources. Finally it makes no sense to base your inlcusion criteria on sources that are not reliable, so the next step is to require reliable sources. So you are back where you started from:


 * No matter how hard you try, you won't find a better set of inclusion criteria other than notability. Believe me it has been tried before, and failed. If you can accept that there are no better sources than reliable secondary sources, you will see that WP:N is based on the best objective evidence you can find to support the argument that a topic should have its own article in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Never say never! New ideas are always on their way!!! :O) 212.200.241.153 (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the existence of two (as opposed to one, or three) such sources establish that coverage is not biased? There can be no easy rules for bias; it requires sound judgement to detect. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And why couldn't you say exactly what is in that nutshell minus the word "notability" as the title here? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Currently this seems to be a revision of WP:GNG, with the only major change being that the standards is not multiple reliable independent sources but multiple reliable sources and one independent reliable source. Why not just rename WP:N and its various children, then make any necessary changes there? Inclusion, importance, article subject standards (that's a fun acronym), whatever. I'm given to understand that de.WP uses Importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to just renaming the various notability guidelines and then discussing any further revisions from there if that would be easier. Anyway, it has been proposed at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation.  I thought it be helpful to draw up an example of what it might look like if renamed to help persuade people.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmkay. Something that may help is a stated manifesto of what you'd like to achieve with a guideline/policy proposal, and what's just rephrasing or repeating what already exists. The latest WP:FICT ran aground in part because of a lack of a clearly stated goal of what was to change and why. That you want to discard the term notability without discarding the idea of reliable-source-based incusion standards and why, that you feel that one independent source and multiple non-independent ones can satisfy WP:NPOV the same way multiple independent sources can wand why, etc. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)