Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.2

Proposal A.2: Every spin-out must prove notability

Proposal: The notability requirement applies to every article, every time, and sub-articles must assert notability of their own subject. If they can't, and the parent article is becoming bloated with information about it, it's time to trim, not to split.

Rationale: Our notability guidelines are essential to maintain all of Wikipedia's high standards. An article with zero reliable third-party sources cannot meet our policy on verifiability, which says that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Without reliable third-party sources, an article may also violate other policies about what Wikipedia is not.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support A.2

Support with the caveat that notability through third-party sources needs not be immediately (time of article creation) but eventually be demonstrated (a week, a month, or on demand). The overuse of primary sources calls for a trim and potential merge per WP:UNDUE, but is not necessarily a sign that a spin-out article should be deleted in its entirety. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: if over time, a subsection of an article gets too long, then either it is a notable subject in itself, and can get its own article, or it is a case of undue weight on a non notable subtopic and should get trimmed. The only exception I can see is with lists where none of the subsections are notable enough for an article, but the main list gets too long anyway. An example would be a list of episodes which gets split in to season lists. But this should only be done when the number of subsections gets too high, not when the individual subsections get too big. Fram (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reflects the best current practices, although the specifics of what this means should be worked out in SNGs and elsewhere. I would say that the formulation of A2 is not quite sufficient. One also needs to look at whether the subtopic is sufficiently coherent as a subtopic to be suitable for a stand-alone article and if it has sufficiently wide coverage as a subtopic, and sometimes sufficient independent notability. Some of these issues need to be worked out in SNGs (e.g. WP:MUSIC specifies that band members should demonstrate sufficient independent notability from the band to merit a separate article). Some of these issues probably do not belong in notability guidelines at all but rather in general style guidelines or in other policies (such as WP:BLP1E, issues of content and POV forking, article length, etc). I actually disagree with the caveat mentioned by Sgeureka above. An article needs to be able to survive an AfD at the moment of its creation. That is, the requisite sources proving notability should, at the very least, be producible on demand. This is consistent with the WP:V spirit and requirements. Saying that one may need to wait a month or some undetermined amount of time before the necessary sources may materialize is not sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Are we allowed to comment to each other?) Being able to survive AfD is not equivalent with assertion of notability. E.g. the articles of Daniel Jackson and Jack Shephard, created in 2004 and 2005, lacked and still lack any demonstration of (independent) notability (the few bits of real-world info were just added recently), and serious attempts to AfD or merge them would either result in speedy-keeps (without any improvements to the articles) or topic-bans by arbcom. Add-third-party-sources-now-or-die approaches are simply not well developed at en.wiki yet, but the word "eventually" helps us until we get there (de.wiki already has a seven days AfD-!vote option, which I quite like). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are allowed to comment on each other's endorsements, I don't see a problem here. What I mean is that an article needs to be able to survive an AfD at the moment of creation and that, if pressed, the article's creator needs to be able to establish requisite notability in such an AfD and not have to appeal to WP:CRYSTAL type arguments. This does not mean that an article actually needs to have all the requisite sources in it at the moment of creation (although it is desirable) or even sometime later. But it should be possible to make a convincing contemporaneous keep case if pressed. Certain types of sources are not in fact appropriate for inclusion in the article, such as, say, hundreds of citations of the work of some academic used to establish notability of such an academic. But it is important that they exist and be producible in an AfD if necessary. Nsk92 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think we need to institutionalize "List of episodes" and "List of characters" as exceptions, and stop there.Kww (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a great idea, and should help reduce the flood of trivial spinoff articles (many of which end up in AFD). RobJ1981 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the caveat that notability guidelines should not apply to lists (of any kind, not just lists of characters and episodes). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fram echoes my thoughts about undue weight. Lists are trickier but I'm wary of green-lighting any kind of subarticle at the moment. Nifboy (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Having seen all sides of the argument, I'm sympathetic to people who find this too strict. Perhaps we can make some exceptions. But honestly, this wouldn't be that bad. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every article to have coverage in two reliable third-party sources. It's actually pretty lax, and lets in a lot of low quality articles as is. It's a pretty basic standard. Randomran (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imperfect but close to right support. GRBerry 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Randomran, I can understand why many editors find notability a burdensome guideline at times, but there is such a vast quanity of reliable secondary sources just waiting to be harvested (more and more of which is being put online all the time by the likes of Google Books) that it is really not that difficult guideline to comply with. I agree with GRBerry that it is close to being "close to right" in the sense that it does not require "expert opinion" to determine what subjects are or are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which makes WP:N a very democratic guideline in a way. Furthermore WP:N dovetails so well with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly WP:V and WP:OR), which regulate article content in such a way that it encourages good quality artilces. If someone could table an alternative set of inclusion criteria that work just as well as General Notability Guideline, then I would seriously consider changing my vote, but in all the years it has existed, no one has proposed an alternative set of inclusion criteria that work without expert intervention. It is far bettter to stand on the shoulders of giants than on a mountain of spam & cruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; although I'm not sure we need to be overly zealous with the trim ax either. — Coren ^(talk) 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, primarily per User:Fram. WP:WEIGHT instructs us to elaborate pieces of the topic depending on its coverage in reliable independent sources; if there is only minimal coverage in those sources, then WP should likewise have only minimal coverage. I do believe, however, that a separate guideline may need to be created for lists. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Black Falcon, GRBerry and Randomran express my reservations. Otherwise, I think the idea presented here is spot on. We need to have sufficient sources to craft an article that is of decent quality, in line with our basic content rules and well clear of what Wikipedia is not. Vassyana (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, notability covers topics, not articles; but spinout articles have spinout topics and those topics should be held to the same standards as normal. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is necessary to prevent cruft. PhilKnight (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the spirit of this. Without prejudice to how notability is defined or how flexible it should be, every article should stand on its own two feet. Creating a separate class of articles (I do not mean lists) is a cure worse than the disease. Would we put a context box on the page saying "Gentle reader: Be advised this subject is deemed to lack notability when considered in isolation, and should be understood in the context of main article" or more succinct words to that effect? ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support fr33kman (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Notability is not inherited and there is absolutely no need for exemptions. Standalone article should always be able to establish enough notability to stand alone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support more than I oppose. I think there could be exceptions, but this, or something close, should be the general rule. Articles need third-party sources for raw material. This typically corresponds with notability, so if an article subject is not notable we don't have the necessary raw material to construct the article. Thus, trimming and locating in the main article is usually the best solution for this case. I'm not opposed to a separate discussion regarding whether character lists should be handled differently. Pagra shtak 16:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — the general rule we should follow. There are exceptions such as episode lists and character lists that have basically been accepted via consensus, but otherwise, this rule should stand true. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wikipedia's coverage should be encyclopedic in every article. Thus we should apply the notability test every time. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - spinouts should have sources to prove notability execpt in exceptional circumstances (case-by-case). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. This prevents fiction and other things from ballooning from 1 article to a zillion articles on a few reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only articles with a notability proved by reliable sources can be permitted on Wikipedia. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is a summary of Weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is the current best practices, with the exceptions being episode type lists (which often can still show their notability with at basic reliable sources covering the overall topics) and character lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above. and my comment under A.1. Bongomatic (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An article establishes a topic, that topic MUST be notable for inclusion. If the topic isn't notable, then don't spin it out. If an article exists, the topic's notability is implied by the notability guidelines. A reader shouldn't have to guess whether an article he/she is reading has met the guidelines or is an insubstantial, rarely referenced version of a more notable general topic. Notability must be established for every article, every time, with no exceptions. Themfromspace (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If there are not adequate sources for an sub-article, then it surely needs correcting in the parent article not being split out into its own poorly-sourced article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia is not EB; we do not have a staff of professional editors and we do not have complete control over our content (far from it!). We sometimes do better than EB; we often do worse. We must hold ourselves to very, very high standards of accountability, otherwise we will never be taken seriously. Please salt and pepper this comment with links to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT etc. to taste. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, while we should include a lot of stuff, we must be sure of the existence of something before an article should be written about it. If it is not as notable to create a specific article, than a section about it should be included. Marlith (Talk) 04:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS basically say the exact same thing. Everything non-obvious in an article must be referenced to reliable source. If the spin-off was still part of the article, it would have to be referenced, and therefore notable. So must it stay if it is spun-off. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a significantly higher requirement than the requirement of reliable sources (often editors argue for deletion based on notability, even though the thing clearly existed and is referenced). WP:N also states "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." - thus if the spin-off was still part of the article, it would not have to meet notability requirements. Therefore this new proposal places a higher burden on spin-offs. Mdwh (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The status quo is working just fine, in this regard, per my comments in the prior two questions. MrZaius^talk 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely. No special status for so-called "spin-out" articles. Articles are articles and they're all equally subject to the same proof-of-notability requirements. —An gr 06:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Please pretty please with sugar on top. Plrk (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Every section must prove itself even within a larger article, let alone if it is spun out. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true according to current WP:N guidelines - please see my comment to #32, above. Mdwh (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with a possible light touch approach for lists. Warofdreams talk 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notability makes sure that new articles are properly sourced to be included. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A sub topic would need to be notable to get sufficient verifiable sources to write anything other than a stub, and I believe that articles should only exist for topics that could progress beyond a stub. In addition the article might not be read as part of the parent topic, given the way that people may find the topic -- ratarsed (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup — if it's notable it can be here, otherwise not. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An unverified spin-out could potentially fester for months if there is not a high level of interest in it. Then it just becomes another unreferenced article and no one remembers that it was split from some notable parent. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the system only works when articles are viewed by many editors. Keeping non-notable articles around allows POV and error to fester in cul-de-sacs. Coemgenus 13:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is the right way for an encyclopedia. If there is a source in the main article, why not copy it? (and all unsourced articles should be deleted.) Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not quite following the thinking that certain mainspace pages are special cases that can bypass or avoid the consensual guidelines and policies that we have built up. Of course every mainspace page must meet the basic policy requirements of the project! SilkTork *^YES! 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit. If there is a body of information within a section that cannot pass the notability guidelines for a standalone article it is likely that the information is not essential to the main article, and it's quite likely that if the information has become so large that a summary style split is being considered, and this information does not pass notability guisdelines, then a trim or rewrite should be considered. SilkTork *^YES! 15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but reword: the "bloated with information" part is nonsensical, but the idea is correct: if there are sources, you can write about it, if there is a lot of information, start splitting. "Trimming" is maybe not the right word, because it gives the impression of less information, whereas the real idea is to put the details in a subtopic article and an overview in an overview article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but slight reword: Every article needs to prove either that it is notable enough to exist or if it is an extension of another article, notable enough to exist in a seperate article. By extension, this includes topics that are notable enough that they have become too huge to fit in the parents article. SGGH ^speak! 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Question: Why are articles "spun out"? Answer: Because the section has become long enough to stand alone as an article. If it is that long, it should be referenced to reliable sources. Therefore, the section has the sources to prove notability... If the sources don't exist, the section shouldn't be that long, because it contains large amounts of un-referenced personal analysis... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every article should always prove notability through third party sources. --Banime (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Most sensible of the three so far. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, generally. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the most practically workable suggestion. I agree with other editors' comments about clearly endorsing episode lists, but when explicating the rule to be followed, it seems to me that this formulation will do the best job of encouraging proper behavior (article creation discipline if you will) from the greatest number of well-meaning editors, while keeping workable standards to be applied in merge/redirect/deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - This is pretty much what I have believed for a while. How we go about creating an article should not influence how we then treat them. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, has always been reasonable practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No free passes. An article should be able to stand up to our standards regardless of its origins. --JaGa^talk 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This makes perfect sense to me; the article is either notable or it isn't. It's quite possible for some minor aspect of something that is notable not to be, and the same standards should be apply to both. If it's notable there'll be a reference, and if it isn't, there won't be. Anaxial (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The logic that leads to my opposition to proposals A1 and A2 now leads to my support of proposal A2. -- 69.183.102.174 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support For the same reasons that I oppose A1 and A1.2 do I support proposal A2. Iterator12n ^Talk 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the reasons given in the proposal. Sub-articles should not be a place to dump irrelevant information. Wronkiew (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we are to be taken seriously, EVERY article needs to prove its notability so that we are not bloated with a load of worthless articles. Scapler (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having written a couple of articles where notability has been challenged, it would have been helpful to have some consistent guidelines for asserting it. I've taken to saying "X is notable for its Y" in the text of the first draft of the first stub of the article while it's still in underconstruction mode just to avoid having that particular issue come up. A problem however is when you are doing a series of edits and parallel research to discover which parts of a tangled chain of relationships are notable (viz. AIG and its hydra nature) and thus notability research involves systematically deredlinking names which have come up in other contexts. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Hits the nail on the head. Should it not be able to pass notability on its own, then it should not be a big part of the parent article in the first place.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, 69 said it well. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because if we are going to have notability guidelines, and no official sub-article process, the guidelines have to apply to every article. Otherwise, practically any article can be alleged to be a spinout of some other article, because topics are interrelated in myriad ways. It will then be very unclear what level of sourcing is required. I don't think this proposal is too strict or effaces Summary Style; if we have a large block of text that is NPOV and well-sourced, by all means, move it and the sourcing to a spinout article. If, however, the text to be spun out has an embarrasing lack of sourcing or is a POV fork it likely needs trimming, as this proposal suggests. Take for example a List of Episodes. Given WP:NOTDIR, there is no reason to list the episodes for minor or unsuccessful shows. But many shows will generate sufficient coverage to support content in the spinout article. I'm also a supporter of B.6 which allows for some level of presumed notability in subject-specific areas, based on editorial consensus. The guidelines should just be consistent for all articles. Fletcher (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support without prejudice. In so far as this is stating policy I support it. However, I also have a broadly inclusionist view per WP:PAPER. All articles should comply with WP:V and this is already a minimal notability requirement that there must be a reliable secondary source which refers to the topic. However, I find talk about "proof" and "high standards for inclusion" unhelpful. For articles which meet minimal notability requirements, I say live and let live. Geometry guy 15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support spin-outs that are really notable won't have problems proving it --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeps the playing field between articles and "subarticles" even and good split-outs shouldn't have any difficulty displaying notability. JRP (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wholheartedly support. --EEMIV (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is in keeping with our existing policy. Rare individual exceptions, as needed, can be accommodated under WP:IAR. But basically, if a topic merits an independent article, it should be demonstrably notable and have reliabel sources and references. Eusebeus (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the proposal says, if such spin-offs can't prove notability in their own right, their presence in the parent article should be reduced. N.B. I agree with Geometry guy's liberal interpretation of notability - if there are one or two sources that satisfy WP:V, that's good enough. I suspect this debate has arisen largely because WP:Notability's wording gives too much leverage to deletionists: what is "significant coverage"?. -- Philcha (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on the principle that any topic that can be shown to be notable, is notable. The handful of spin-out exceptions can be handled with WP:IAR, as said above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support. An encyclopedia should contain notable information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not notable, no article. •Florrie•leave a note• 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: This is, indeed, the very spirit behind the notability and verifiability policies and also behind several important parts of WP:NOT.Each article should be able to stand on its own and be judged on its own merits. It is a high standard, yes, but there is nothing wrong with aspiring to such standards. In fact, it is to be applauded if we truly wish Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. Of course each article need not have the third-party sources immediately present upon creation, but it should be able to be reasonably assumed that such sources exist, and they should be able to be provided if demanded, say, in an AfD. Articles must be given time to develop; such is the nature of Wikipedia and the community editing process. However, articles which have existed for some time without demonstrating independent notability should either be deleted or merged into articles on the larger topics. This is simply good writing and in the best interests of editors, readers, and the encylopedia as a whole as it promotes the presentation of infomation in a comprehensive yet verifiable and contextualized manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notability is not inherited, and any attempts to make it so only serve to fragment articles on topics that are actually notable. HiDrNick! 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Notability is not inherited... also, some sub-topics may be notable when discussing them in context (ie in the main article), but when taken out of context they become non-notable on their own. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with "assert" changed to "show", since any hoax article can assert notability, but sources are needed to show notability. If there are no independent sources on a topic you can't write about this without either just indiscriminately listing facts or using your own judgement about which facts are important. The first option violates WP:NOT, the second is OR. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support: The opposition notes that "we are not paper", but I fail to see why the fact that wikipedia is not a paper medium permits for gads and gads of spin-offs which make no effort to demonstrate their own notability. Sure, this is an electronic encyclopedia, but by what process does this automatically grant contributors carte blanche to create potentially insignificant articles? Blue Danube (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support ALL main space content should be able to stand on its own merits regarding notability and verfiability. Peet Ern (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per HiDrNick and Blueboar above Notability is not inherited. BigDunc^Talk 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Each article whether you call it a sub-article or not, should be able to establish that it is notable by reference to reliable sources. AndyJones (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All articles must hold their own weight. None should be relying on their parent article to prove they should have an article. Not every character of a fictional show is notable, but if you allow for inherited notability, then if the show is notable everything down the line must be as well. This is not true, and should not be made so. If you have no real world content that needs to be split off, then the plot drive content shouldn't be split off. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course, notability is necessary regardless of where the content sits. The same is with encyclopedic nature of the content: either it's there or not. If it isn't, it has to go. GregorB (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A.2

Oppose until you better define notability. WP:V calls for a reliable third party source. WP:N calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The guidance contradicts policy, and the tail is wagging the dog. yes, we need to be able to source information, but there are instances when we can source minimal content on someone or something which merits coverage by dint of achievement. We need to reflect that this process is not black and white. Minimal coverage can be reflected in a small article. Our minimal coverage may inspire people to seek more facts and publish more material we can summarise. We are beholden to writing neutrally. This should mean more care is taken in deciding what we write about by avoiding as much prejudice as possible in what we summarise. This means we should take care to not limit ourselves to subjects on which a propensity of material has been published only. This isn't to say we should cover anything and everything; however, we purport to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. We should not compromise that position based on elitism. I for one would rather have a stub or a redirect on an obscure 19th century Olympic medallist than no coverage of that person at all. If that means opposing the GNG in principle to improve Wikipedia, so-be-it. Hiding T 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What happened to the idea of WP:Summary style, and splitting articles? The biggest problem I see with this idea are things which are types of lists. The list may be an inherent part of an article, but since it's a list it's sometimes better to split it to a separate page. But that doesn't mean that the list itself should need to determine "extra-notability", I would presume? Episode or Cast lists for a TV series, for example. I think that this "all-or-nothing" approach may not be the best idea. - jc37 12:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goes a bit too far, agree if there are no reliable sources third party sources, we should not have an article however this is not the same as establishing notability where exceptions in particular instances can and should exist. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exceptions are needed, and this, like allowing all, would only be used as an excuse. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I oppose notability requirements in general. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The logical extension of this is that the depth of coverage we can provide on a given area of a topic is constrained by the notability guideline. This is not an acceptable outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think notability is determining the extent of coverage is a good thing, as it forces the fancruft, the conspiracy theories, the fringe science, the spam, and all the other weird stuff to prove it is important. The GNG is keeping the encyclopedia neutral by forcing editors to find independent sources. --Phirazo (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Phil Sandifer. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose under the logic and examples given by User:Hiding and User:Phil Sandifer. Added to which, "reliable" is as open to debate as anything else, and rigorous enforcement of this guideline would allow inaccurate information to be used as a source for an inaccurate fact - so long as the information is in a "reliable" publication; while disallowing wholesale some sources which contain vital information and coverage but are sometimes arbitrarily declared to not be "reliable" - for example, interviews with long-dead-but-notable individuals which were carried out by interested individuals and self-published in minor publications. (N.B. There is an implicit implication in debates over sources generally that a self-published interview is taboo, but that if that same interview is used as the source for an article in a respectible publication, the information becomes valid on that logic alone. That's clearly a nonsense argument.) Plus also, Hiding's excellent and well-made point:
"Minimal coverage can be reflected in a small article. Our minimal coverage may inspire people to seek more facts and publish more material we can summarise."
Stubs and lists are not inherently bad, and - I thought - both stubs are redlinks are actively encouraged by Wikipedia, even if they are sometimes frowned upon by individual users. ntnon (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wording of this proposal is far too strong. Under IAR, I keep my mind open to the possibility that an article or list has encyclopedic value without passing any notability criterion (but still being verifiable). Even if this has never actually been the case, the issue should never be approached in a completely inflexible manner. And although IAR renders all guidelines flexible, too many editors ignore it (ironically) for inflexible wording to be a good idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hard fast rule that doesn't always apply. Some editor discretion is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and clarifying observation: As phrased, this goes too way far, and harms the ability of editors to follow WP:SUMMARY and keep articles readable. That said, it strikes me as almost blindingly obvious, if you read all of this and step back, that many of the opinions expressed here, both pro and con for both proposals, are not in fact in true conflict at all, but rather most of the debaters here are simply misinterpreting each other. I think it should be feasible to come up with a compromise solution. I also have to add that there isn't any reason that something split out into a subarticle could not be merged back into the main one by AFD (or otherwise), as a non-useful split. The final wording should explicitly account for this. I think what scares people about this second proposal here is it sounds like "If information is split out of a large article into a smaller subarticle, and doesn't have reliable independent sources as to its independent notability, AFD will just delete it, even if every fact in the subarticle is reliably sourced, and we don't give a damn if that results in loss of encyclopedic information." See my very qualified support of the first proposal, for specific caveats that run the opposite direction - no such proposal will be workable if it permits the willy-nilly creation of wanky articles, like one article for every character on 24 or one article for every 10-minute episode of Tom & Jerry. No one is seriously proposing that, just like no one is seriously proposing nuking sourced, useful information the instant it moves into a subarticle. I think we all need to quit focusing on the flaws in the exact wording of the two proposals and figure out what the principles are underlying both of them and how to merge those principles into a balanced and coherent consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about one thing: Phil Sandifer certainly is proposing that there would be an article about each an every episode and character of 24. He hasn't explicitly addressed the topic of theatrical shorts, but I can't think of anything he has ever said that would make me think that he isn't in favor of an independent article for every Tom and Jerry short every made. BTW, there already is a separate article for every single Tom and Jerry cartoon ... that horse already escaped when you didn't even realize the barn door was open.Kww (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support concise but thorough summaries of major fictional works. I am largely unconcerned about the question of how many articles it takes to do it - or, rather, I don't think the answer to that question affects the main goal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also per common sense, i.e. needlessly restrictive for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while noting that WP:RS applies in full - all claims about albums must have verifiable sources, even if we admit common practice and say that we won't require proof that this album by a notable artist is notable. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Peregrine says, "hard fast rule that doesn't always apply" and for good reasons (also described by others above). -- Ned Scott 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Phil Sandifer and Hobit, too strict. We are not paper. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "It's time to trim not to split. I don't see how valid information on a topic should be left out because a page is too long and because a guideline says we can't split it up. Readers come to Wikipedia to gain knowledge on a vast range of topics. They expect even the most novel things to be found here and because incredibly diverse population of readers we can't delete valid information because it compliments other articles. Scotty dude _review 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as I supported the previous option. Spinoffs should be treated as if they are a part of the parent aticle, and should only be allowed when the lenght of the parent article makes it necessary to do so. Otherwise the spinoff should be considered a separate article, in which case all notibility requirements should be applied.
Oppose. Appears to run counter to A.1 and A.1.2. Trimming is for paper. It's 2008 and time to embrace the computer age. Not saying this is a licence to "print" everything, but valid information should not be trimmed in an online environment. 23skidoo (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too restrictive. Notability is not a policy. As long as the content is verifiable, we can keep it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose In my mind, the only test for inclusion to Wikipedia should be "Can a Reliable Source be found to back up the article." I therefore oppose this position, as it will only make it harder to include content. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The concept of notability cannot override organization done for the sake of readability. Lengthy integrated lists disrupt the flow of pages, and are split out for that reason. This position argues that that the exact same content becomes unsuitable for inclusion if it is rearranged slightly, which is utterly nonsensical. --erachima talk 07:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For completeness, since I supported A.1.2. --Itub (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A logical extension of this argument is that each section of each article has to prove its notability. And therefore so does each paragraph. And each sentence etc. If a topic is notable, and there's valuable information on an aspect of that topic, but formatting it is best as a separate article rather than a section, there's no reason at all to delete it. No-brainer. SP-KP (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer comprehensiveness rather than conciseness when it comes to Wikipedia. We want to help people to find the information they're looking for; if we limit the amount of information Wikipedia contains then we are failing to do that. Waggers (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So long as Verifiability & Reliable Sources are truly being met, it's notable enough. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Other Wikipedia guidelines adequately cover the field. Provided the parent article is notable, spin-offs should qualify automatically.--Calabraxthis^(talk) 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- far too restrictive and unnecessarily so. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sex lives of worms are in no way notable, yet any encyclopedia that desires to be comprehensive and the best in the world needs articles on the little things that aren't notable- yet also not advertisements.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - there are many reasons to create spin-off articles which are not necessarily notable on their own, but are clearly notable as part of the greater topic. There's no reason to trim articles on broad subjects to a minimum because of WP:SS, instead they can be split with various spin-off articles which compliment the main article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This proposal confuses WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. The notability bar for including some piece of information in an existing article is lower than the one for creating a separate article, but a lower bar for notability does not equal carte blanche for unverifiable material, as this proposal's rationale asserts. Sometimes there are good technical reasons to split an article, e.g. page length, which may cause the sub-article to still be verifiable but may have a harder time justifying notability. This hard and fast rule prevents that kind of judgment, i.e. sometimes articles have to be considered as sections of other articles for technical reasons. VG ☎ 13:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose As said by Vasile--Marhawkman (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the general priciple here too, but these elements must be weighed using common sense and community standards, and handled on a case-by-case basis. Notability is sometimes not clearly apparent on first glance, and sometimes sources are only found halfway through a debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wiki is still not paper. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until someone can convincingly argue and illuminate a real difference between subarticles and subsections of a single article. Ford MF (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SS and WP:NNC this isn't reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even the wording of this proposal is misguided; bloated with information? I constantly scratch my head at editors who declare, "there's too much information here! We must excise!" It is not the nature of an encyclopedia to be a sampler, and cases will arise where, in order to comprehensively address a subject, verifiable and relevant information about a topic exceeds 100kb of article space. The proper response to this is not to scuttle information to slim back down under 100kb. WP:NOTPAPER for a reason. Chubbles (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Hiding and Sandifer, we need to be able to expand on elements of articles per WP:SUMMARY. This is too limiting a proposal. Dreadstar † 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notability considerations in these cases are a waste of Wikipedia contributors' time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole concept of notability guidelines is hurting Wikipedia, not helping it. Hans Persson (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This proposal goes beyond WP:V and WP:RS in the name of upholding them. Also, forbidding exceptions to WP:N is not compatible with fallibility. Also, when an aspect of a larger topic does not have multiple reputable references independent of that topic, but is better off covered on a different page for reasons of size, layout and/or readability, this proposal would have us remove relevant information for the sake of organization. Not acceptable. --Kiz o r 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (I'm so glad to see this issue finally being discussed regarding general notability instead of just WP:FICT) I believe WP:SPINOUT occurs for reasons of WP:SIZE as it's primary motive. This is a technological restraint, and not one related to content. Therefore a spinout article should be protected by WP:NNC. Very often trimming is absolutely appropriate, but for entirely separate reasons. By supporting this statement, content may be lost when it instead should be edited according to other policies, and if after appropriate editing, the size has reduced enough, merge it back into the article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; this basically ends up being a call for merging brief, usefully organized articles into huge, less useful lists. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needlessly restrictive as a "spin-out" N has already been proven once, why repeat ourselves? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common sense and WP:NOTPAPER.Abyssal (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I could live with this, but given my views of SNGs I'm casting my support elsewhere. Generally speaking I think spin-out articles should qualify on their own for notability; I can imagine, however, that there are a few things for which an SNG might permit notability of a spin-out for the sake of the betterment of Wikipedia's articles. — X S G 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose it should not be a requirement to prove every article notable for it to be kept. There is not an issue with a lack of server space, or name space. Articles with little notability or relevance could easily be deleted without much attention or concern. Most spin-off articles take the namespace derived from its parent article and do not interfere with other articles. I believe that this proposal is aimed to control articles produced by agressive and enthusiastic fans (the ones who usually write in universe). I do not believe it is necessary to place such a barrier or cap on their enthusiasm. And in a matter of reasoning, the topic will eventually loose its popularity or the fans will mature to write better articles. Either way, we will eventually have to write an article on the popular culture item, and given that we do not want to read all the books in the series or watch all the shows in the series: the content produced by the aggresive or enthusiastic fans will ultimately provide us a better summury than for us to read the original. This allows us when it's time to look back on the topic to be able to produce a C or B class articles rather than a start of stub. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fronsdorf (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Firstly this conflates two separate issues: the requirement to assert notability (articles which don't do this are grounds for speedy deletion), and the notability guideline. I think the former is reasonable to require in each article, but not the latter, so long as the article meets the Wikipedia fundamental policies, such as being supported by verifiable sources. The section about "trim, not to split" is particularly worrying - the decision on how to structure articles should not be constrained by a fear that splitting into articles will result in the articles getting deleted. I also remind editors that notability is a guideline not a requirement, so this is another reason why I oppose this proposal. The rationale about verifiability is irrelevant - I am fine with a proposal that says verifiability should apply to all articles, however, the proposal talks about notability, which is a far higher standard (often editors claim things are "not notable", despite being supported by reliable third party sources). So again, two different issues are conflated: verifiability and notability. Quoting the verifiability guideline is not support for this proposal - which means the rationale provides no argument for this proposal whatsoever. Mdwh (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Articles will still need reliable sources when it comes to verifiability; the question is how much they need for notability. The response to a long article should not be to trim it: that is the whole advantage of this not being a paper encyclopedia. We shouldn't have articles on everything, but we also shouldn't omit material because we have too much knowledge that we can make freely available or limit the means by which we can present it in a digestible fashion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This policy would have the undesired consequence of discouraging the splitting of large articles in any situation where one or more of the potential spin-offs are not clearly the subjects of substantial third-party coverage. (Spin-off articles need reliable sources, but each spin-off should not need to demonstrate notability independent of the parent.) --Orlady (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If the guidelines were changed to allow 'notability' to be established by the fact that people actually read the article, actually a far less subjective/biased standard than 'coverage in third party sources', then this would be a reasonable position. However, under current process this is simply a way to limit the amount of coverage Wikipedia can provide on any topic which someone doesn't think should be here... regardless of how many of our users are actually interested in the material (i.e. how 'notable' it really is). --CBD 11:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This is ridiculous and overzealous. It does not allow any leeway, and is therefore completely unworkable in the real world. --16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Essentially this is what we have now, and wastes a lot of time. Timmccloud (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overbroad per above. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Oppose Notability hurts wikipedia. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose this proposal is aimed at the destruction of knowledge, and as such must not be allowed. Grue 17:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose If somebody thinks the subject is important enough to create an article about it, somebody else could think it is important to read the article. That's what Wikipedia is all about. --Lova Falk (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per my comments in the first section. AfD hero (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If verifiability is the problem, then get more serious on enforcing that policy. Or to phrase it differently, the proposal is phrased specifically to exclude material already excluded by a different policy. So why didn't I vote neutral? Because I think this proposal tries to regulate something based on something else, and thus I'm concerned about collateral damage. For example, I think this proposal would put unwelcome constraints on article structure. Shinobu (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on A.2

Comment. While I generally oppose this (see my comment #18 at #Support A.1), I think it might help to clarify whether this rule about notability applies to a spin-out's notability within the parent subject or its notability within the real world. For example, a list of characters in a game or work of fiction is unlikely to have any real-world notability, but may be very to the article about the game or work of fiction. Also, I think a spin-out's notability can be judged with regards to how much an editor can write before breaking a major Wikipedia guideline. For example, The Order of the Stick#Characters contains links to several extremely detailed spin-out articles, one for each major character in that work of fiction; but when you go and look at any of those character pages (for example, Roy Greenhilt or Vaarsuvius), you will see that those articles are comprised almost entirely of unnecessarily detailed plot summaries (violating the guideline on plot summaries) or speculation and original research (violating WP:OR). This is a clear case of where, notability guidelines aside, it should be obvious to editors that these spin-outs are unnecessary and should be integrated into the article.... so I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes notability of spin-outs can be judged better just by looking at whether or not there's anything valid to include in that article, rather than by relying on notability guidelines and looking for third-party sources. --Politizer (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While it is a good idea to trim to avoid undue weight, I am not opposed to the idea of having many separate subarticles in order to cover a large topic. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal A.2: Every spin-out must prove notability

Support A.2

Oppose A.2

Neutral on A.2

zproxy.org