Wikipedia talk:Importance/Archive 01

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Before contributing constructive criticism here, you should be familiar with the other relevant policies.

There was a poll on a similar policy at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance.

Why this policy is necessary

There is widespread debate (mostly on various "votes for deletion" pages and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance) on whether the lack of notability or importance be a legitimate reason to delete an article - in other words, what kinds of articles should exist at Wikipedia. Some think that verifiability is the only criterion for inclusion; others believe that some measure of "importance" is necessary:

From Wikipedia:Check your fiction:

"The articles on fictional characters are going out of control. Simpson, Star War, Star Trek, Harry Potter. A strict guideline is definitely a priority." Anon
"[We should] avoid context duplication and flooding of the article space with what many consider to be unencyclopedic fringe material." Anon
"We don't write about every fictional character. If we have more fictional characters than physicists listed it is because that is what people prefer writing about. Whether a character (fictional or otherwise) should be on their own page or page about whatever it is they are related to should probably depend on how much there is to write about them." Angela

Re taking advantage of the fact that Wiki is not paper:

Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap. Anon

I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"

The above conflicting viewpoints represent a large number of discussions over what should be included in Wikipedia. These arguments arise because official policy on this is unclear; it is not mentioned in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and the only obvious mention of which subjects deserve articles (in Wikipedia:Check your fiction) is not well defined:

Do not unnecessarily create small articles about largely irrelevant fictional characters, locations, objects and so on that can be better integrated into larger articles.

What does "largely irrelevant" mean? This policy attempts to reach a consensus on this, so confusion and debate on article inclusion can be reduced.

··gracefool |☺ 05:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The criteria for this might be well-intended, but they're going to present problems. In the paranormal realm, for example, you might have fortean phenomena that will be important to some, and maybe even very real, but you'll then get skeptics who will deny such an article the right to even exist on the patent nonsense grounds, not to mention arguing the same regarding religious topics for that matter. Thorny territory. As for unverifiable, there's a lot of encyclopedia-worthy stuff that's inherently unverifiable, but that should be no argument against inclusion as long as that fact is made explicit in the article, meaning that criterion could be problematic too. Breadth is definitely a Wikipedia selling point, I'm uncomfy with this one. Chris Rodgers 05:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable essentially just means that you should be able to quote an outside source who is an expert on the subject. If you can't do that, your article is probably original research. Note that it calls for an expert on the subject, so for an article on the paranormal, it would be a paranormal expert, rather than a skeptical scientist. If you can find no outside expert sources for your subject, then I think almost everyone would agree with me in saying that your subject doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Importance cannot rightly be used to exclude subjects just because only a minority believes they are true. ··gracefool |☺ 00:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only answer to the titled question, given by the text following it, that I can ascertain, is essentially that: "It is necessary to define our policy on Importance, because it is an issue with which is associated some confusion, and so we must eliminate this confusion, be it by stating that importance is irrelevant, or otherwise."

Why not then simply rewrite the entire proposal to something along the lines of:

"There is no reason to justify that an article is important and thus deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia.
Only through other Wikipedia policies of <list policies here>, should one determine if an article is suitable for the encyclopedia"

If the only purpose of this proposal is to clarify, why then not clarify contrary to how it is currently proposed? Seeaxid 05:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Prescriptive and undistinctive

My opinion, but I think you are taking a small sub-grouping of WP articles (ones based on fictional settings), and trying to write a broader policy which you intend to use to bypass normal review process of their value. It also appears to be too prescriptive, and is really not very accurate. It is not very distnctive, and reads just like a re-hash of existing policy, with a few out-of-context quotes, like the one from Jimbo. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've clarified the process (it was rather confused before), you should find it better now. The importance of an article is decided via votes for deletion, as it is now. The policy doesn't bypass review process, it merely provides a guideline, in the same way that Wikipedia:No original research does: One just says "Delete - original research", perhaps with a reason, instead of rediscussing for the upteenth time why those kinds of articles don't belong at Wikipedia.

It pretty much is a re-hash of existing policy, a clarification that is much needed IMO (as it says, what does "largely irrelevant" mean?). All policies build on each other.

Some of your comments aren't very constructive without being more specific:

The policy applies to any subject with a relatively limited audience, whether they are about fictional or factual subjects. The broader policy seems natural to me - do you think it should be limited to fictional subjects?
In what way is it inaccurate?
In what way is Jimbo's quote (or any other) out of context?
Okay, I've attempted to make the context clearer. ··gracefool |☺ 08:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

··gracefool |☺ 08:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This overlaps the previous discussion and vote at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. Angela . 20:52, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

That was a poll; this is not. I've purposefully separated Wikipedia:Importance from Wikipedia talk:fame and importance because the latter created an "us and them" attitude from the start by being a poll rather than a policy proposal (see the policy creation guidelines). IMHO Wikipedia:Importance actually has the possibility of creating consensus, rather than creating a divide. ··gracefool |☺ 04:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Three thoughts by Francis

Importance of this article (also outside the context of imaginary stuff)

I've been working a couple of times on the Copyleft article, e.g. on the section dealing with Copyleft in Art & documents, which includes a discussion of the GFDL licence (like e.g. applied for Wikipedia). The tenure of this section of the Copyleft article is that when applying copyleft outside the context of copylefting of software, it is unavoidable that one in the end relies on broader (and partially more intuitive) concepts than what is traditionally included in "copyright law". For art this is e.g. the notion of "respect" (like in "Droit d'auteur"). For wikipedia, one of the most important of these "broader and partly intuitive notions" is probably NPOV. The two pages explaining the basics of NPOV (NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial) make clear that NPOV at least partially relies on the notion of importance (see "space and balance" section of NPOV tutorial). So, it is my view that an article that in its turn tries to give a more general foundation to the concept of "importance" can only be applauded while it are such kind of articles that are the ultimate fundamentals of the wikipedia concept. --Francis Schonken 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :) ··gracefool |☺ 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Remark on the present content of the "importance" article

Time and again I'm surprised to find the "verifiability" concept on those places where I expect to find the "falsifiability" concept. This is about whether or not Wikipedia has aspiration to any kind of scientific value (which I think it does/should have!). Am I the only person having some kind of an awkward feeling every time I read "verifiability" - or do I have my concepts wrong? --Francis Schonken 20:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou for your insight, I entirely agree. I will move Wikipedia:Verifiability to Wikipedia:Falsifiability in the next few days. ··gracefool |☺ 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moved back to Verifiability; see the talk page. ··gracefool |☺ 07:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thought on fictional characters

Recently I've been putting some work in the question of how to apply categorisation to articles on people (ultimately - i.e. yesterday - leading to a first step in the creation of the wikipedia:categorization of people article). The thought I want to add to this discussion page on "importance" is that the delimitation between "fictional" and "real" characters is not always so clear, e.g. if I remember well there is a medieval collection of some 200 hagiographies (including the first mentioning of Saint Sebastian), without there being any certainty whether these "saints" (that all became official saints in Roman Catholic tradition) really existed, or are just legendary. Same applies to several Bibilical figures (especially Old Testament). Also Orlando/Roland is such figure which some say has historic roots, while others would rather describe as "fictional". Jack the Ripper similarly. Homer himself (not the Simpson one!) similarly. And what about characters in roman à clef-kind of endeavours? (PS: well I stumbled into something here without knowing: I got so intrigued by these examples, way beyond the point I was trying to make here, that I decided to start a List of borderline fictional characters). What I want to say is that it appears to me that all categorisation has some vague edges, so that when writing a "wikipedia:" article on "importance" the preferable goal would be to have one uniform guideline for all articles, and not "per category" (which would lead to new unavoidable fuzzyness at the outskirts). Maybe the "uniform definition of importance" is not possible (...or practical), but nonetheless I would consider this as a "goal" as much as the perfect article.

Yes, this policy attempts to be a general definition of importance, not only applying to fiction or "fiction". ··gracefool |☺ 12:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re; Relevant rather than important

It occurs to me that importance is perhaps not the best word choice. People rather disagree about what is important! Many contributors feel that much of the content, especially about fictional universes is not important and I'm not sure I don't disagree with them (Exclusing of course the fictional universes I'm obsessed love). But I would say that those types of articles are relevant and interesting enyclopediac content. Just my pennysworth. ChrisG 18:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd stick to "importance" rather than "relevance": see "Wiktionary" definition of "important": important comprises "relevant" as well as other issues, so importance is the broader concept. Also: relevance has a more subjective component: what is relevant for Hercule Poirot is not necessarily relevant for President Putin, etc...: when something is "important" there is more something of a "spread out" relevance for many persons. --Francis Schonken 14:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fictionland

Not that this wouldn't cause other problems, but what about creating a sister project for fictional material (e.g., "Middle Earth", "Elizabeth Bennet", etc.). One could then write, for example: The main character of ''[[Pride and Prejudice]]'' is [[wikifict:Elizabeth Bennet]]. - dcljr 04:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No thanks. They're encyclopedic enough, and we've been able to get some quite good articles on them. Ambi 04:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disinformation as postmodern ironic art

Does Wikipedia justify inclusion of ironic disinformation as an acceptable art form? As a right to self-expression? Do believable hoaxes, given weight by Talk page contentions, undercut Wikipedia's credibility? Do such entries have importance? Wetman 10:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia can talk about such art forms, and give examples (see e.g. Culture jamming), Wikipedia itself is however not an "art work" but an "encyclopedia" (see e.g. copyleft article that makes distinction between "art" and "wikipedia-like endeavours"). If a hoax is "important" it has every right to be in Wikipedia, but it will always be named a hoax on every spot it is mentioned in Wikipedia. Whether the hoax is "believable" or "non-believable" has little to do whether or not it could be mentioned in Wikipedia. "Important" hoaxes that are described in Wikipedia can mention how many people actually believed the hoax (like the famous War of the Worlds hoax). Hoaxes described as some kind of "truth", without mentioning them being a hoax (e.g. because they sound believeable, or proved to be believed by many, etc...) are however misfits (a.k.a. vandalism) as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

Furthermore I think the expression "disinformation as postmodern ironic art" total crap, while it seems to suggest that disinformation as artistic expression is somewhere tied to postmodernism. As if this kind of ironic approach does not apply to so many art before postmodernism. Ever heard about trompe l'oeil? Invented many years before modernism, leave alone postmodernism. Anyway, Wikipedia itself does not indulge in "trompe-le-reader", if I may say so.

--Francis Schonken 19:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Eequor's policy changes

Eequor, I've changed back a number of deletions and changes you made to the policy without any discussion. I feel that you've missed the purpose of this policy - to find a middle ground between increasingly vocal deletionists and inclusionists. Many people would say that this policy is too inclusionist; to make it more so reduces this policy's chances of success. Also, I've tried to incorporate and refer to as much previous work done on this issue as possible; if you don't think some should be referred to, please state your reasons here.

As for certain sections of the policy being controversial: of course they are, the whole policy is controversial, which is why it is still merely "proposed" rather than official. If you have a problem with something, discuss it here, rather than marking some parts "controversial". ··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To me, a few of the policies seemed more adequately discussed by other linked policies, which was my main reason for removing the extras. Mostly I was trying to streamline the proposal without making significant changes.

The only real changes I made were:

moving the Alternative policies section to this page, hopefully to be improved until it's clear how they might be applied
- In my opinion, the inclusion of extremely subjective evaluations such as these only weakens the proposal.
- Also, since there was no discussion of them on this page, I assumed them to be added by somebody other than yourself (i.e. an editor trying to skew the policy's objectives).

streamlining the Policy section
- My note that certain of the reasons could be controversial was only adapted from the notice already there (which didn't get to the point quickly):

If an article is "important" according to the above (of course, this may be controversial, and can be discussed on the article's talk page, using this policy as a guideline), it should not be deleted on the basis of it being:

adding patent nonsense, for completeness

I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to change the policy. If that had been my intent, I would have discussed my opinions here first. --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 17:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, ok. You'll notice I've kept most of your changes; just a few deletions I objected to, I think it's better to have a slightly bigger policy and draw on previous work.

By "this may be controversial", I was referring to the fact that most of the criteria are subjective and disagreements may arise over whether they apply or not. I added this in response to Netoholic's comments, to show that inclusion would still be discussed if necessary. ··gracefool |☺ 22:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternative policies

Some people feel that some articles about specialized subjects, especially fictional subjects, should not be included in Wikipedia, or should not have their own articles, even if they are considered important according to the above policy. Articles agreed to be important may still be considered "unimportant" if:

If an article is agreed to be "important" according to the current policy, it still might be "unimportant", if the article is about a fictional subject, and:

the article fails the 100 year test (In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?), and/or
the article is small (eg. less than 1000 words), and/or
the subject fails a Google Test for importance.

··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

the article fails the 100 year test (In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?)

Many, many articles fail this test. Moreover, this is impossible to determine. --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the article is small (e.g., less than 1000 words)

Many notable articles fail this test. --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re this point and the one above it: Some people think those articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia. ··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) the subject fails a Google Test for importance

As Eequor stated, this is an impossible test to measure (and a horrible idea). We cannot predict the future, nor should we try. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is very subjective. --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 23:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion about the test and it's failings should be at Wikipedia talk:Google Test.

Almost all policies are subjective judgments, most of them more subjective than the Google Test.

Yes, these alternatives would result in deletion of many articles. However, some people think these articles shouldn't be in Wikipedia, and make their views known by voting such articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Importance is designed to reduce the arguments on VfD and come to a consensus. In the interests of fair representation, I think these alternatives should be at least considered. ··gracefool |☺ 05:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see the problem with what we have now. At the moment, we have the opportunity to use all of these to come to a reasoned conclusion as to whether the article is indeed notable. This policy, as it stands, is an inclusionist's dream. I mean, according to this, there's even a cloud over deleting hoaxes. Give me a break. Ambi 06:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um, there should be a cloud over deleting hoaxes. Unless you mean Wikipedia hoaxes / hoaxes created by one or a few people as a joke, which would in any case be excluded based on verifiability. ··gracefool |☺ 01:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the 100 year test

Personally I have a great dislike for the 100 year test. Maybe this is not the right place to discuss this, but as far as I know it is mentioned on more than one wikipedia policy page, and seems to be relevant to this "importance" discussion. Also I have no idea about the preliminaries of how this concept grew in Wikipedia (I don't want to throw away just like that something over which a consensus was maybe only reached after long thoughts & discussions).

Nonetheless...

I'd favour replacing the 100 year test by something I'd call the public address test: When a concept is used in a public speech, or in a writing, or whatever form that is addressed to the public at large (so not limited to an in-crowd) and if that concept is not explained in that public address itself, then that concept has every right to be a Wikipedia article (or a wiktionary article in the case a short definition of the meaning of the word is all that is needed to understand the concept).

I try to clarify this with an example: Larry Wall gave a "State of the Onion" speech, which was for an in-crowd (a congress). Later this speech becomes something for the "public at large", while O'Reilly publishes it here. In this speech Larry Wall uses some concepts which he clearly intends everybody to understand without further explanation, e.g.:

... which according to the public address test mentioned above are all eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia as separate articles.

Advantages of public address test over 100 year test

Although not 100% bullet proof either, the public address test has undeniably a higher degree of verifiability/falsifiability than the 100 year test (so, in my view, advancing NPOV).
I wouldn't worry so much about people living in a hundred years, as about people living today being able to understand whatever they are likely to encounter some day in the public space.

Public address test relies on...

... good definition of the distinction between an "in-crowd" and the "public at large", which is never totally NPOV, but better manageable than the definition of what people will be likely to think in a 100 years.

(Francis Schonken 21:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Sounds good. certainly better than the 100 year test. ··gracefool |☺ 12:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Erm, how about getting rid of them both? That would mean deleting a LOT more articles than we currently do, and would turn me into an inclusionist, which would be pretty scary. Ambi 13:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thoughts, that would be better. The public address test seems to me to disclude a lot of articles which have inclusion consensus. ··gracefool |☺ 21:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to delete articles which don't pass the public address test. We can't expect somebody to give a speech on or write a book about every notable topic. A large number of subjects are more or less understood to be public knowledge already, so a "public address" about them would be silly. The public address test should only be an argument for inclusion. --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 22:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the public address test approves basically everything in the Enyclopedia Brittanica, which is in the public domain. --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 22:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't that just instruction creep? There's no way that we're going to delete anything that's in the EB, or that's even close to that notable. Ambi 22:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trivia

The short-lived wikipedia:trivia straw poll is now a redirect to wikipedia:importance:

I updated wikipedia:policy thinktank accordingly, with a reference to wikipedia talk:trivia that explains the reasons for the merger.
Still not solved, in my view: are "trivia" and "wikipedia importance" mutually exclusive?
- Some articles on people have a "trivia" section - should these be kept?
  - I would keep that! --Francis Schonken 06:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - ...

- Another way of putting the question: can "trivia" be "important"?
  - I would say yes: "importance" is the principle at stake, run it over the things that are usually called "trivia", and keep those that prove important (I see no reason why these shouldn't be called "trivia" any more). --Francis Schonken 06:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - ...

(section initiated by Francis Schonken 06:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Importance compared to Interest

My own personal prejudice tends towards "Stuff important, show me Interesting". I'm tired of reading people pontificate about whether a subject is "important enough" to include on Wikipedia; they assume that because they have no personal interest in it, it is therefore "too trivial" for anyone else to be allowed to consider. Wikipedia will wither on the vine if there is not enough interesting material for people to read; your average user will not want to be dictated to as to what is "important enough" for them to be allowed to read about. As for the "100 years" test, I'll bet there's a whole load of stuff which has simply been forgotten because some stuffy old encyclopedist decided it was "too trivial" to record. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 13:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Phil,

Both "importance" and "interesting" as a "wikipedia:" subdomain topic somehow derive from the "Space and Balance" section of the wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, that is: NPOV is one of the central concepts for making Wikipedia possible; by the end of the second page explaining NPOV (i.e. the tutorial), it appears that NPOV relies on both "interesting" and "importance", so it is a noble goal to give a more general definition of both terms. Note that "interesting" and "importance" are seen as different concepts in that spot, for clarity I give the complete quote, bolding the occurences of both concepts:

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.

So the topic of this page is importance, but don't let that stop you from contributing to the twin topic wikipedia:interesting too.

--Francis Schonken 10:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians? --[[User:Eequor|η

υωρ]] 18:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For anyone else interested, see also the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Ambi 23:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Talk:Yesterday (song)

Not a good Choice

This is stupid. Encyclopedias are for the dissemination of information among the general public. Although I understand that there is interesting information here (a lot of interesting information at that) I do not think this would be useful to most people, and I also think that this would not go under the category of one of Wikipedia's most excellent articles.

Luckily encylopedias, like most everything else, are not made for individuals and their personal whims, likes, and dislikes. Your disinterest in music says more about yourself than music or encyclopedias. This article is accesible except in the section on the melody which does not explain (or even link to) the musical terminology used (with the exception of tonic). If this is the source of your complaint, rather than complain about something you don't understand, you could simply have asked people with a different, not infererior, area of knowledge to make those edits and explanations. Hyacinth 00:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RFC?

Does this page still need to be listed at Requests for Comment? Maurreen 01:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes - it is still an issue that needs deciding. This article, or a modified version thereof, should be made official policy. ··gracefool |☺ 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unconfirmed

This policy has not been confirmed in any way, has it? It's a pretty major policy to try to sneak in under the radar. Marking accordingly - David Gerard 10:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to also mention "reverting all signs that someone had concerns about the importance of the article, for a whole slew of articles." An easier way to handle it, that would have also had the nice side effect of not unilaterally removing all evidence that people had raised concerns about these articles, would have been to edit the template itself to note that the policy itself was under discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So put such concerns on the article talk pages, where they belong, or put the articles up on VFD, as you have been doing - either is suitable. "Notability" STILL isn't a policy, and putting a template like that on pretends it is - David Gerard 22:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notability is not a "policy". But notability is a concern, and I for one welcomed the appearance of the {{cleanup-importance}} tag as a means to raise the issue through some 'kinder and gentler' mechanism than VfD. I disagree that the talk page is the place where such concerns "belong"; I see no reason why the same could not be said of every other cleanup tag, and yet most of them go on the article page, not the talk page. There is little question in my mind that Wikipedia would benefit from a way to gently and impersonally remind people "try to write about things that actually merit encyclopedic coverage, and if by chance you haven't made it clear just what is encyclopedic about this subject, you really should." I don't very much like the system where the only ways to raise a concern about the matter are to put the concern on the talk page (where the chance is about 60% that it will be ignored) or to put the article on VfD (where the chance is about 95% that the article's contributor(s) will tear into you with howling fury, asking how can you be proposing to delete all their hard work.) If we do not avail ourselves of a way to say "look, this is a serious concern that needs to be addressed" that is less bite-the-newbies than VfD, then at least some of that howling fury will be deserved. "Well, why didn't you say something about needing some evidence that this band/anarchist publisher/novel was actually significant to more than just its fans?" "I did, but someone removed the tag."

I see at the end of the paragraph you've assumed the point you're trying to prove. The answer to "Well, why didn't you say something about needing some evidence that this band/anarchist publisher/novel was actually significant to more than just its fans?" is actually "well, there isn't such a requirement. But we do need verifiability." - David Gerard 17:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If that's so then you should be objecting to VfD, since that's the reason half if not more of all VfDs are initiated. And if it wasn't a principle supported by the community, then we wouldn't see so many of those VfDs getting consensus and passing. But it seems you're trying to use the fact that the principle is clearly in operation and clearly widely supported there as a reason to not be consistent with it elsewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's those who haven't wearied of VFD and who would like it as a policy - but it still isn't deletion policy, you will note. Therefore, acting as though it is, and using it as an argument for itself, is arguing in circles. You can't prove it's valid using an example that assumes it's valid - David Gerard 20:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the poll asking if "lack of fame or importance should be a legitimate reason to delete an article?" failed to win consensus. - SimonP 23:40, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

And note Jimbo's own careful explanations of the verifiability policy, and how the completely bogus examples (which I will term the "what about my dead hairdresser" objection) are in fact filtered by it - David Gerard 10:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"That's those who haven't wearied of VFD and who would like it as a policy - but it still isn't deletion policy, you will note." Indeed. Dan100 20:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

What are the standards of importance for sources? (prompted by recent dispute on Talk:Myth) Sure, we have to Wikipedia:Cite sources, but who and what kind? Does the source need to be a professor of the article's topic? Do they have to be an "expert"? A professional? A friend or relative? Should creationist sources be allowed? Hyacinth 03:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For example: mythology.

May no discipline other than mythology comment on myths, or just not on Wikipedia? Why? What about when other fields studies include myths, such as music with texts or tone painting depicting myths. Would a source simple need to be respected in both fields? Actually all three: mythology, poetry, and musicology? (four including history?) Freud may not be an expert in the history of myth, but that does not mean he may not have insight. Also, he was an example, and possibly a poor one, so don't waste your words tearing him apart. Hyacinth 06:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an easily defined standard, but if the purpose is quoting someone on the definition of the term, that individual ought to be highly respected and sourced by other scholarly published references in the field. To use your example, Freud, although he may be entertaining, certainly would not count as notable for defining a field other than psychoanalysis and its offshoots (say, dream analysis or something along those lines). DreamGuy 03:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) (from Talk:Myth#substance)

Shouldn't this be part of Wikipedia:Cite sources or a related policy? It's really a different issue to the importance of different subjects. ··gracefool |☺ 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Depth

Some people seem to think that if something is deep, it should be kept, even if is not important (e.g. fancruft). This was all being disputed on Wikipedia:Depth, but there were requests there to merge with this policy to iron things out. I tried to clarify and summarize Wikipedia:Depth and merged it here. This policy is also unsettled...at least now, everything can be unsettled in one place. I don't mean to express any personal opinions about Depth or Importance; I'm just trying to tidy up the Wikipedia: namespace, clarify what is being said here, and get a more accurate picture of what does or does not have community consensus. -- Beland 23:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved Depth from the policy page to below. Including it in the policy confuses and probably discourages some people from accepting the policy. It can just as easily be discussed here; I've also merged the previous discussion. It can be re-entered into the main policy when/if it is cleaned up and has some demonstrated support. ··gracefool |☺ 05:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed policy

Many subjects have sufficient encyclopedia material to merit many articles. For instance, within science, there is a huge amount of material, so we have the more specific biology and the even more specific evolutionary biology. When deciding whether or not an article that is part of a larger subject should be deleted, consider how much coverage the larger subject should be getting.

For example, if you're looking at an article about a minor character in a not-very-important 19th Century novel, the best thing to do might be to delete the article and merge a small amount of the most important material with the main article on the book. An article about a similar character in a very important book (such as an influential religous text), however, might deserve a separate article, if the main article is already long and there are existing articles on major characters.

Some people prefer subjects which are under construction to be split into separate articles only when necessary. The opposite approach would be to decide how much coverage will eventually be needed, and create stubs for all the articles that will eventually be created. It may be difficult to know how much coverage will actually be included in the future, especially because this is largely dependent on finding volunteers to write on each subtopic. On the other hand, the construction of a series of related articles (all of which might be clearly needed in the end) may proceed in a less-than-natural (for readers) order simply because writers tend to make contributions randomly.

Discussion

I think importance needs to be qualified along side depth. That is to say, articles must be a logical extension on what already exists. So a minor character in Pokemon (or for that matter the Simpsons, Star Trek, Doctor Who...) is notable if there exists good articles on the parent subject already. There is potential for an article on Signal boxes of the Midland Railway, but until Midland Railway and Signal box are up to speed, it may be better to leave it. Thoughts? Dunc|☺ 22:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between this and Wikipedia:Importance? IMHO they try to do the same thing, so they should be merged. ··gracefool |☺ 03:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The difference is subtle but is this, (and please help trying to compare it):

An article is important if it is well, wiktionary:important, has sufficient merit as an article.
An article has depth if we already have articles one level above it in the hierachical classification.

Now, an article may have both depth and importance (great). However it may have depth but lack importance (i.e. fancruft), it be important but lack depth (actually that is a good point where importance overrides depth?). If is is unimportant and lacks depth then it should go! See the following table:

		Importance
		Yes	No
Depth	Yes	Great	Fancruft
Depth	No	Expand me!	Delete
Dunc\|☺ 12:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If anything, this should be a part of Wikipedia:Importance, which tries to define in itself what should be included in Wikipedia. But even then I don't think this is needed, since Wikipedia:Importance gives allowance for minor, "deep" subjects. If it's unimportant, why should it be included, just because it's deep? I think you explain better at Wikipedia talk:Importance - as for that, what's wrong with making an article on paintings of the death of James Cook before an article about James Cook? Surely having that article is better than not having it, even if there is no broader article on the man. Sure, it's better to have the broader article first, but that shouldn't be a reason to delete the deeper article. It still belongs in Wikipedia. Rather, someone should merge the deeper article, or expand on the broader article. ··gracefool |☺ 04:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Pokémon comparative notability test

Some on WP:VFD apply the Pokémon Comparative Notability Test: whether the subject of an article is of greater notability than a random Pokémon character that has an article.

Still a proposed policy

As far as I can see, this is still a proposed policy - not yet a guideline since an large, active part of Wikipedia does not agree with it (a glance at VfD will verify this). Also, {{proposed}} is more accurate than {{notpolicy}}. ··gracefool |☺ 08:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, man. I've been at Wikipedia for 9 months now, and this is the first time that I have ever heard that importance is not a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion of content. It is a defacto standard, used constantly and consistently on VfD, as well as in consideration of which pieces of information get their own article as opposed to belonging in another article. I just don't understand this. If importance/significance is not a factor, then why do we delete non-notable schools, vanity pages, etc.? How can verifiability be the only guideline? Is there a strawpoll somewhere? This non-standard needs to be made a standard, and soon. func (talk) 19:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was a poll some time ago, you can see the results at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. The poll is pretty much historical, but some people continue to append their votes. The proposition was more or less killed when Jimbo came out strongly against it and his no vote is a good summary of why some of us feel notability should not become a deletion criteria. - SimonP 20:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've just read Jimbo's statements on that page...are we really suppose to take seriously the comments of a man who votes YES and NO...just kidding. ;-)

In fact, Jimbo's statements are contradictory. He uses the example of "Qubit Field Theory", which he states is "arguably not important", but then he informs us that at least a "a few thousand people in the world have heard of it..." well guess what, if a few thousand learned scientists in the world of have heard of the thing and consider it something important to know, then it is notable. Jimbo then goes on to suggest that what really makes "Qubit Field Theory" encyclopedic is that the information is 1.) verifiable and 2.) easily presented in an NPOV fashion. That's just silly. Dozens of vanity pages are both verifiable and could be presented in an NPOV way, ie: "John Smith is a computer scripter who works in Philadelphia." We can look up John Smith, see that he is a computer scripter who works in Philadelphia, and we're still left with the conviction that no one cares. It isn't notable. Indeed, our vanity and Wikipedia:No original research policies are nothing more than very specific ways of stating that encyclopedic articles must be notable, must have some significance.

Er...actually, I see that several people gave examples similiar to, (and indeed better), than my own, and each time, Jimbo continued his stance undeterred, so there is no point continuing. I just...seriously, there is something wrong with an encyclopedia where almost anything goes.

I would also like to state for the record that I am not, in any strict sense, a deletionist. I have never referred to any article as "something-cruft". I would like Wikipedia to contain as much information as possible, and I generally prefer merging over any other type of action on VfD, but there are obvious limits, and sometimes, it isn't enough simply to cite WP:NOT and WP:NOR. If the issue is currently dead, then it really needs to be revisited. func (talk) 22:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where would go to verify that "John Smith is a computer scripter who works in Philadelphia?" Jimbo's argument, which I agree with, is that such a page is not probably not verifiable without original research. Original research is anything that relies solely on primary sources like phonebooks, company websites, and government records. On the other hand if a peer review work on "John Smith the computer scripter who works in Philadelphia" is published is there any good reason to delete it? Compare for instance Pierre Maury whose article is basically "Pierre Maury was a shepherd," with a bunch of extra detail. Maury did nothing of note during his life, but since his biography is found in a peer reviewed work of scholarship it is completely verifiable and thus encyclopedic. - SimonP 22:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

If someone has been biographied in a peer reviewed work of scholarship, that's a pretty good indication that the person was in some way notable - else why the biography? Dan100 (Talk) 14:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

So now I'm even more confused. Ultimately, I feel like the (NPOV + verifiable) standard is being used as the "long way" to get to the real reasons that make something encyclopedic. The "Pierre Maury" article has thrown me for a loop, and I will need to reconsider precisely what it is that bothers me about all of this. With regard to "John Smith", I am tempted to violate WP:POINT by replacing "John Smith" with my own name, and (secretly) creating a thoroughly verifiable and NPOV article about myself, which I believe I could just barely manage...um, no, I would never violate WP:POINT... but I could. :) func (talk) 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Number of people interested test

GOOPTI

"Importance" is tied with GOOPTI (acronym by User:Antaeus_Feldspar, but a concept familiar to us all): Horses of Middle-earth may be "important", but it is certainly GOOPTI. I'm just proposing here to merge this page into a WP:GOOPTI policy (i.e. if a concept is "important", but treated totally out of proportion with its level of importance, it may be trimmed and merged). dab (ᛏ) 20:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I and many others completely disagree with GOOPTI. It's even more POV than this policy currently is. ··gracefool |☺ 02:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to explain the logic underlying that conclusion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm starting to regret having included "non-notable" as the reason for one of my votes in a VfD, because I've been thinking about "The Perfect Encyclopedia", (you know, like The perfect article), and I've realized that what I'd consider a major attribute of the perfect encyclopedia would be the obscurity of its contents. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to store and disseminate information. The more information, the closer to the ideal; the Perfect Encyclopedia would be an indexed, searchable, omniscience. What concerns me about Importance or GOOPTI policies or my own use of the phrase non-notable is that it blocks out obscure information, and I think the encyclopedia's purposes are better served by Horses of Middle-earth than by, say, funnel cake because while it's likely that fewer people care about Tolkienian horses than about funnel cakes, and we could thus rule the horses as less "notable" or "important", more people know about funnel cakes already. Sure, if the only people who know about something without having read the wikipedia article are the ones doing the editing, I think it's appropriate to delete the article on the grounds of "non-notable", but really aren't we just using that as shorthand for "We think the people who created and/or maintained this article essentially made it up, thus it is either unverifiable, incorrect, original research, or some combination thereof?" I know that's been my tendency. It's one of those things where I don't really think it's a matter of importance that makes cradily an Acceptable Article Subject Matter but a student group at some university an Unacceptable Article Subject Matter, it's that nobody who's not a member of that student group will ever be able to provide information about it, whereas anyone who gets ahold of Pokemon media can provide infromation about a cradily. It's just easier to explain that as "cradily is more important [encyclopedic, notable, famous, etc.] than MPAS" The Literate Engineer 03:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you making a distinction between obscure information and obscure details? GOOPTI differentiates between the two: it does not say "X is so obscure it does not need to be covered', it says "X does not need to be covered in this level of detail." -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure that I was, actually. The Literate Engineer 21:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not explaining myself. Actually, I take back what I said, it isn't necessarily any more POV than Importance. However, if something is good enough to be included, what's wrong with someone expanding on it, if it is well-written and stands up to other Wikipedia policies? Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper. ··gracefool |☺ 07:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am uncertain if this is intentional, but such a standard leaves Wikipedia open to fads, which may interest thousands or millions of people for only a few years. It remains to be seen whether or not this is a good thing.

The current de facto policy seems far less forgiving than this one. For example, the Leeroy Jenkins entry was re-written scores of times, with most people agreeing that thousands of online gamers were momentarily interested in the subject. However, in the end, the entry was deleted and only a brief mention of the topic made in the World of Warcraft entry. All explanation, alternate links, and discussion were expunged.

··anonymous |User talk:Anonymous 25 Jun 2005

Proposed rewording

I feel that the wording, or viewpoint of the policy is off. Instead of saying what criteria excludes an article, we should say what criterea includes it. Also, the X people rule is unusable, I think - I've converted it a bit, notably the "must be clear and unestimated", and "or were concurrently" (we shouldn't delete an old article just because it's passed on).

We should also make a policy (that is, part of this policy) that applies to sections of an artice, for example, I might say that I played a video game 4 days ago, and provide proof, but this would not be important enough to include at computer and video games.

If noone disagrees, I'll replace the project page wording with this shortly, and we can tweak it from there. Slike2 08:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed wording

An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true:

there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject.
the subject has been scientifically peer-reviewed.
it is an expantion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject.
discussion on the article's talk page (using this policy as a guideline) otherwise establishes its importance.

If an article is "important" according to the above then it should not be deleted on the basis of it being:

insufficiently important, famous or relevant, or
currently small or a stub, or
obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)

Note that an article should still be deemed innapropriate, and subsequently deleted, regardless of importance, if:

it is unverifiable, or
it has copyright problems, or
it is patent nonsense, or
it is original research, or
it is unexpandable (it cannot ever be more than a stub, and could never be a perfect article due to its subject matter - it may however belong as part of another article), or
it does not otherwise belong in Wikipedia

Discussion

Looks good. A few things though: The last section should be at the top. They are not reasons things may be deleted, they are reasons things should be deleted. Furthermore they are current policies with much greater acceptance than this one.

Also, what is "proof" of interest of a reasonable number of people? You'd need to have 500 people state they are interested. It is always going to be an estimate, as far as I can see, that can't be avoided. ··gracefool |☺ 09:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to this - it's the best wording I've seen yet, but what Gracefool says is quite true. Ambi 10:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the "estimated" part out, "there is clear proof" is enough, I think, for judgement to be made. The reason I put the other policies at the bottom is because I think that they are seperate from this one. For example, something may be important due to one clause (such as hilarious patent nonsense recieveing 1000 visitors, brand new major discoveries that are obviously true but are pending publication elsewhere, and so on). The other rules do not establish importance, it's just that it should be noted that they still apply with greater force than someone proving importance. I've also added another criterea, "it is an expantion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject". Slike2 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unimportance = Original Research

Is it possible for an article to be unimportant yet not be original research? It seems to me that if a subject is unimportant then nobody reputable will have bothered to publish any information on it, and so there will be no reputable source to cite on it. In contrapositive, if there exists a reputable source for some information, then clearly the information has been deemed worthy of publication by someone fit to judge, and we may conclude that it is sufficiently important.

I therefore propose that a policy on importance is unnecessary. We should articulate and enforce a clear policy on what are acceptable sources, and accept an article as sufficiently important if and only if acceptable sources are cited.

Hesperian 30 June 2005 01:02 (UTC)

Ah, I see I have merely restated the (NPOV + verifiable) position defended above by SimonP. Well, it has my vote. Hesperian 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC)
- - I can't take credit for this notion, it was originally Jimbo's. - SimonP June 30, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
- I disagree with this. I remember seeing a VfD for a website a while ago that obviously nothing was published on, yet it had 500ish users logged in, and many more registered, so it was obviously of some importance. There are plenty of things that people may want to know about, and that would be completely valid additions to wikipedia, that "seem" to fall under original research. I think that "original research" is used completely innapropriately on wikipedia by editors wishing to remove content: "A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas" - going on to mention "a theory or method of solution", "original idea", "defines new terms" "an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". You'll note that this does not include things like "George Bush's dog died on June 14th" (this is made up, but imagine it was true) - this specific sentance falls under importance. Slike2 30 June 2005 01:49 (UTC)
  - The obvious response is: if the website is so "obviously of some importance", then how come nothing has been published on it? And why should Wikipedia stick its neck out and become the first to do so? But that response leads inevitably to a debate about the merits of the No original research policy, and we're talking about an Importance policy here. On the subject of Importance:
    Those who deny the importance of the website and desire the deletion of its Wikipedia article would happily note that the article would be subject to deletion under the No original research policy, and must therefore conclude that an Importance policy yields no benefits in this case. Those who affirm the importance of the website and desire to retain its Wikipedia article will unhappily note that it would be subject to deletion under the No original research policy, and must therefore conclude that an Importance policy cannot save the article from deletion. Either way, an Importance Policy has no bearing in this case; the issue here is whether or not the No original research policy is sometimes "used completely inappropriately on wikipedia". Therefore your example appears to reinforce my view that an Importance policy would yield no benefits, and that the key to it all is No original research. Hesperian 30 June 2005 03:02 (UTC)
    - Original research applies to ideas and theories - it does not apply to something like me saying "the Holocaust occured before Derek Smart's birth date". This is a novel statement of fact (I don't believe it's ever been said before), but it is not a novel idea, or theory, etc. No original research does not apply there - but importance does. A website may not have been mentioned in any reputable publication, but I'm absolutely sure that this does not mean we should write nothing about it. I hope you see the difference? Slike2 30 June 2005 04:08 (UTC)
      - I see your point, and it's a good one. I need to think this through before responding. Hesperian 30 June 2005 06:23 (UTC)
      - Actually Wikopedia:No original research applies to far more than new ideas and theories. Our definition is that "original research refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas." My view, however, is that original research is not the main reason we deleted pages on minor websites, verifiability is. Verifiable does not just mean that each fact can be cited somewhere, it means that the accuracy and NPOV of our article can be independently verified. The only place to get detailed information on a minor website is from it or from those close to it. The same is true of unimportant people, garage bands, and many other items. For garage bands, for instance, the only people that will know enough about them to write an article are the members and close friends and family of the band. All these sources are biased making it impossible for us to guarantee that an article is NPOV. This is why we need to base articles of secondary sources such as newspapers and journals, not just because an article on a garage band would be original research. - SimonP June 30, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
      - Slike, you're still giving me examples of articles / information that would be deleted on Wikipedia:No original research grounds. WIkipedia:Importance can't save an article from being deleted on Wikipedia:No original research grounds; only Wikipedia:No original research can determine whether an article is deleted on Wikipedia:No original research grounds. If you think we should be writing about websites that have not been mentioned in any reputable publication, then you should be a force for changing the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy. I still can't think of a situation where promulgating Wikipedia:Importance would have any affect at all. Hesperian 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)
        Forgive my slowness of mind; I'm finally beginning to comprehend the importance of this proposed policy. It is within my power to write a fully cited and entirely NPOV article on Stoddy, one of the nine camels that accompanied David Carnegie on his epic journey from Coolgardie to Halls Creek. Where he went, what load he was carrying, how much water he drank, the time he ate poison and almost died: it's all there in Carnegie's published journal. I think an Importance policy is needed to help me resist the temptation. Hesperian 1 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
        What harm would it do were you to write such an article, assuming that it was indeed correct, properly cited, and NPOV? Let me see: 1) it would consume your time, 2) it might consume some disk space, and 3) it will consume part of the article namespace. Item #1 is strictly your own concern. Item #2 is de minimis--disks are cheap. Item #3 is probably the most likely reason, although in this case not an issue (given the lack of things called "stoddy"). Granted, nobody would probably care about the article--but it's presence wouldn't be damaging in any tangible way. I see no real harm to Wikipedia, or its readers, were such an article to be created. --EngineerScotty 00:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Depth

Depth is not importance, or notability so why do people keep vandalising it by redirecting it here? Dunc|☺ 14:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"Jimbo's note"

It would be nice if someone could include a link to it, so we could actually read it... Dan100 (Talk) 14:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ah ha, found it (I think). Dan100 (Talk) 14:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

And you're not linking to it either? Ha ha! :-) Tedernst 20:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Absurd number

"...deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true:

There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide)..."

Five hundred? You have to be joking. I'd suggest five hundred thousand. Marskell 09:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Five hundred sounds about right. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 09:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

- LOL. High school principals. Bartenders at popular bars. Soldiers above the rank of lieutenant. Individual priests and pastors. 500 is absolutely ludicrous. Honestly, I read it and thought it was vandalism. Marskell 09:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Marksell's highlighted my concern about the proposal as it stands: it's too inclusive. Not that 500,000 is a good number for that criterion, either, though! True, 500's only given as an example of a possibility, not as a proposal. Nonetheless, perhaps it'd be best to get rid of any attempt to define importance and just say, "Many Wikipedians point out that current deletion policy makes no mention of the ideas of importance or notability. Many other Wikipedians dismiss that argument and those who advance it, believing that deletion policy should require notability for an article to be kept and would state that if misguided inclusionists would quit blocking consensus with their uncromulent reasoning." The Literate Engineer 06:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC).

Agreed, simply removing numbers period might be best. Re. my suggested figure note what the page actually states "...(eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." Not 500 bought a record, watched the show, read the book etc.—simply 500 concurrently interested. Phrased liked that, yes (within an order of magnitude say) 500 000 is IMHO fair. Marskell 07:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed 500 to "international, national, province/statewide audience" to bring it in-line with changes at WP:BIO. Note that the lead states "any one of these." Thus, this isn't a requisite for inclusion but rather one criterion that may allow for inclusion. Marskell 13:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think "interest" refers to "interest in reading an encyclopedic article on the subject". It would exclude things like principals, unless they were absolutely outstanding. I've clarified the wording, but perhaps it could be put better. That said, I think that the number should be lowered to 50 or 100. We should include verifiable articles on any subject. The real issue with writing about principals and bartenders is that you have no idea if the information is accurate or exaggerated, because it may very well be a vanity article - but this is covered by another policy. If we can verify the factual accuracy, I think that the only criterea remaining is if anyone will stop by and read the article, assuming we can make good estimations on that. –M^T 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. When I read things like the above paragraph my honest first thought is to stop editing on Wiki. If 50 or 100 is the entry point then I might as well waste my time on a blog or discussion board. That said, this is a proposed guideline so I will re-revert and await further comments. Marskell 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Your argument makes me want to stop contributing" is not a valid argument. It would be unfortunate if you were to leave because someone shared an opinion or belief, yes - but since we seem to be holding a discussion I'd appreciate it if you didn't use that sort of thing to argue your point. You seem to think that by adding more information, we cheapen the information already within the encyclopedia. I strongly disagree. If there is one person in the world that could benefit from the most obscure of articles here, we should be doing our very best to make sure that that article is welcome here. Please provide some examples of articles that may be innapropriate if included based on a rule of 500 people (or better yet, 5 people). | Could you please revert your edit to the initial 500 that we started with? If you're proposing a change and there is disagreement, I think that it's fair to leave it as it was until the matter is settled, especially if two editors have reverted in opposition. –M^T 04:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with M. What keeps things of minor interest out is not that few people are interested in them, but that they are not generally verifiable. As long as an article can be checked to ensure it is neutral and accurate there is no reason to believe it will harm the encyclopedia. If you hate the entry on Qubit Field Theory, simply ignore it. - SimonP 04:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

It was a comment not an argument and I'm free to make it so save me the lecture.

To repeat: "this isn't a requisite for inclusion but rather one criterion that may allow for inclusion." If Qubit Field Theory fails a number bar it passes on the basis of being peer-reviewed so the comparison doesn't hold.

Further, "I think 'interest' refers to 'interest in reading an encyclopedic article on the subject'" introduces an enormous amount of grey area. How can that possibly be measured except incompletely by subjective commentary on VfD? And it seems to me having made that suggestion you subsequently contradict it: "We should include verifiable articles on any subject" and Simon's subsequent "What keeps things of minor interest out is not that few people are interested in them, but that they are not generally verifiable."

So which is it: interest and verifiability or verifiability alone? If we leave out interest altogether and simply go with verifiability how about:

U.S. Army Captain may have a company of 100-200 under his command and would pass M's test. A Major and Lieutenant Colonel would certainly pass the 500 test. Are these verifiable? Absolutely. Should they be included? I don't think so and of course they'd get swatted down on VfD.
Similarly, any CEO or senior manager with more than 500 staff should be included.
The high school principal argument is totally valid here. They easily have a staff 50; over ten or fifteen years on the job an entire generation of one municipality is going to know their name. Is this verifiable? Sure it is. Does it belong. Again, I'd say no. Marskell 09:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

'500 interested' is WAY, WAY, WAY too low. The oft-mentioned 'audience of 5000' (generally paying to be in the audience), would indicate at least 50- 100,000 people need to be "interested". Niteowlneils 19:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

500 is less than 0.000008% of the world's population, clearly too low for a timeless, universal encyclopedia. Niteowlneils 19:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that this encyclopedia aims to be universal, then why do you argue against this? 500 people is 500 people. If the population expanded to 1000 times that number, would articles then need to be removed? I've stated that if one person could benefit, then leave it in. 500 serving under a person doesn't neccisarily mean that they are all interested in reading an article on the person. I've had managers who I've liked, but whose history I couldn't have cared less about.

Could we break this off for a period of time, try to determine why each one of us thinks what we do, and see if we can build this up from the very bottom? I have a proposal for what we should base importance on that I'd like for us to consider:

Importance in an encyclopedia, I think, is based on singular contribution to humanity, and then the understanding of that contribution. The contribution may be technological, "spiritual", or otherwise. Why is it that a principal should not be included in an encyclopedia, but a professor should? I think that it's because a professor acts also as a researcher, or a contributer. If that principal came out with an influential paper on the subject of managing a school, would it be safe to assume that we'd include her? Likewise, a professor that has made no contributions should not be added simply because he had taught X number of students. Teaching may be a contribution, but not singular. I think that the professor test has served so well because a professor usually isn't one unless she's made a contribution of some form. So, a subject would be included because of the contribution they've made, and then information would be supplied that helps us understand the contribution.

What do you all think? It seems to hold up reasonably well against what's been mentioned here. –M^T 07:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that these latest comments are essentially advocating a removal of numbers period. This isn't a bad idea. Marskell 09:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject

How many is a reasonable amount of people? My message board has 150 regular users and about 350 irregular users, that's quite a lot of people. Yet it's been dismissed as non notable! :( Borgs8472 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL 500 people used to be the example figure, but some wikipedians thought 50,000 would be more appropriate, so the number got taken out. Personally I'd vote to keep a company with 500 employees, but not a web forum with 500 members. Kappa 00:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- So numbers don't work. You're implying other criteria. Marskell 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - ^ ^ My point exactly. If there's no objective standard for 'reasonable number' the criteria should be removed in my opinion Borgs8472 07:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hard numbers have been removed, "reasonable number" generically employed remains. A "community" has replaced 500. Some might argue this vague but I think it allows sufficient scope for discussion. Marskell 10:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well my website has definately got a great community to it, however it's been deleted as non-notable :( Borgs8472 16:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why delete unimportant articles?

Pardon the long-winded rant :), but I'd like to expand on a question posed above, in response to the suggested article on Stoddy the camel.

I've often pondered the subject of importance/notability, both here and on other wikis (with different editorial policies). Often times, I wonder about whether an article is "important" enough for inclusion, and what criteria are appropriate, and what others might think.

Then I always come back to the fundamental question:

Why? Why delete unimportant articles? More specifically, why delete articles solely on grounds of importance or notability; articles that are otherwise verifiable, properly cited, NPOV, and encyclopedic? Why would Wikipedia and/or its readers be better off not having access to information about Stoddy then having access to it?

I've come up with several plausible reasons, some better than others. Of course, my list of reasons may be incomplete, so feel free to suggest others, or swat me upside the head if I'm all wet here. At any rate, I've come to the conclusion that deletion of articles based on (un)importance is not necessary. Many of the issues that restrict other forums simply don't apply here--we have no need to perform triage.

Conservation of physical resources

This is a major issue with print encyclopedias, which have firm (and non-negotiable) page counts that they must not exceed. Likewise for editions distributed on other forms of physical media, which may need to fit in n DVDs (often 1; as having to swap discs is a major source of annoyance to users). But, Wikipedia is not paper. Meaning--Wikipedia isn't bound by this sort of constraint. According to the FAQ, the database size (as of 1 year ago, including logs and metadata, excluding images) is 170 Gb. Most of us have bigger disks on our PCs. Even assuming replication of the data for perfomance, inclusion of images, and more room consumed by article expansion--this is scarcely a limitation. Modern computer systems routinely manage databases that are several orders of magnitude larger than that.

Conservation of editorial resources

This is a major issue with traditionally-edited encyclopedias, both print and online. Britannica, and the rest, employ a finite team of writers and editors who must generate, edit, revise, select, and arrange the content. Each additional article increases the workload of the editorial staff. However, this is also less of an issue for Wikipedia. Articles aren't written unless someone puts forth the effort to write them; so that's not an issue. Arrangement of articles is not an issue. The main concern might be the other editorial functions--revision, fact-checking, and such, which ought to be done by persons other than the original author. However, it does not seem to be the case that the Wikipedia editors and admins are overworked; nor does there seem to be a "backlog" of new articles that haven't been vetted by at least one other person (even if no changes are made).

Conservation of namespace

This doesn't seem to be an issue, despite the mostly-flat (two levels, essentially) namespace that Wikipedia uses. Existing procedures (disambig pages, cross-links, etc) work well in resolving namespace conflicts. The search capabilities (both internal to Wiki, and external via search engines) allow readers and editors to find articles quickly without knowing the article's exact name. Perhaps if Wikipedia tried to index every man, woman, and child in the world--the list of John Smiths would get unwieldy. But the vast majority of people can be excluded due to reasons other than notability or importance.

Consiseness as an improvement for the reader

It is often argued that users (as a whole) are better served with a more consise volume; one that may contain fewer articles, but (allegedly) contains a higher signal/noise ratio. A common justification for deletion of unimportant articles is that they indeed are "noise"--and that a great way to improve your SNR is to reduce noise. However, what one may consider noise another may consider signal. My ideal Wikipedia would contain precisely those topics I'm interested in that day, and nothing else; but that would be useless to virtually everyone else. Most Wikipedia readers may not care about Oregon Highway 103 (a page on an obscure Oregon state highway that I created some tiem back), but the roadgeek community does. Further, SNR is a concern in limited-bandwidth channels, where an increase in noise corresponds to a decrease in bandwidth. But Wikipedia is not (from a quantity-of-information point of view) a limited-bandwidth channel.

A related argument is the argument that having lots of information (some of which certain readers may consider superfluous) makes it harder to find articles of interest. However--if google and others can index a World Wide Web containing billions of pages, including many created by hostile parties with the specific purpose of skewing search results, and do so in such a fashion that most searches return meaningful results--surely we can handle a site with mere millions (today only 750k) of articles, articles which are under our control (and thus theoretically free of malicious content)?

Some of this may come from the wiki culture; where conciseness is seen as a virtue, and reductionism a dominant paradigm.

Controlling self-promotion

One stated target of importance criteria is vanity articles. (Other forms of self-promotion, including advertising--spammy or unintrusive--can clearly be dealt with via NPOV and need not be judged based on importance). Some believe that verifiability (and the requirement that sources be independent and meet some criteria for worthiness) will filter out vanity; if a person/band/small business gets a lot of press, chances are he/she/it is notable anyway. Others disagree; pointing out that many sources--even reputable ones--can be manipulated to give the appearance of importance (such is the business of public relations), and that Wikipedia needs an additional reason to remove self-promotional content. That may be true; I'm not sure notability is the best lever to use. Perhaps a more explicit policy requiring independence of editors from their subject; anonymous editors always being considered suspect--articles that are truly self-promotion can be rejected for that reason.

Issues of reputability/prestige/status

In many cases, I suspect that this last point may be the bottom line in many notability disputes; even if other reasons are cited. Many readers consider encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) as "sentries" or "filters" whose editorial function (among other things) is to separate wheat from chaff; correspondingly, being covered in an encyclopedia is something which is highly coveted. Many encyclopedias have happily encouraged this belief--and seek to zealously guard their prestige by actively suppressing topics which are likely to be considered frivolous by readers. For the Encyclopaedia Britannica to have an article on a topic such as Stoddy would be scandalous--were such an article to sneak past the editors and make it into print, heads would likely roll.

Many debates over notability arise from debates over the relative worth of a topic, rather than the content of an article.

This strikes me as the other reason why Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper is important. Not only are we not constrained by physical limitations such as page count--but we do not (and we should not, in my opinion) strive to be the arbiter of what is important, notable, or otherwise worthy. Nor should we be concerned about being "debased" by including trivia or cruft--the only thing that debases Wikipedia are articles that contain POV, are poorly-written, are incorrect, are unverifiable, or are unencyclopedic--all of which are orthogonal to importance.

Finally, I should repeat an argument here that I made on c2 in a similar debate: The act of article creation and article deletion are not symmetrical. Creation is passive; deletion is violent. If a borderline-notable article exists, nobody is forced to read it. But if a borderline-notable article is deleted, everybody is prevented from doing so, or must go somewhere else if they indeed are interested in the topic. Thus, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to always err on the side of keeping the article.

Again, I apologize for the long post.

--EngineerScotty 05:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well said Engineer, I'm in hearty agreement with you. I particularly appreciated that you highlighted the violence inherent in acts of deletion (which is sometimes justified - I'm no pacificist). I've only got one thing to add. With regard to the prestige issue: my impression is that some people would stop contributing if articles didn't have to clear a notability bar. They require that wikipedia be, or at least work toward being, elite. Now if these people are exactly the same as the deletionists, then it doesn't really matter since they destroy more than they create and Wikipedia is well rid of them, but I'm not sure that's the case. It isn't unnatural for people to want to create and belong to an elite club. Perhaps a notability bar is required to prevent discouragement of high-end contributors? --noösfractal 06:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability Subjectivity

A lot has been said, and I apologize if this is simply a repeat of what someone else has already said;

The purpose of the Notability clause, as I understand it, is to guard against primarily the creation of articles about yourself, your parents, your hometown, etc. When I created articles about my workplace, the Museum of Science, Boston, and Lord of the Rings the Motion Picture Trilogy the Exhibition I thought I was pushing it. As an academic (or should I say, an aspiring academic), I value esoteric topics rather highly. I have written many articles on battles and warriors in Japanese history, who the average reader (user) might find un-notable. But if they merit mention in a history book, or in a college history lecture, then I think they merit an article or at least part of an article here.

I do not think it is my place, or really any one person's place to say what is and is not notable/important enough, as long as it is within someone's field of interest. You might not care about who Kosaka Masanobu and Kitabatake Chikafusa were, but they are historical figures, worthy of an encyclopedia; Robert H. Grubbs, Richard R. Schrock, and Yves Chauvin are mentioned on today's Main Page for their work on olefin metathesis. I have just about zero knowledge or interest in who they are or what they're working on, but I'm sure there are quite a number of scientist Wikipedians who do care.

Outside of fancruft (which is a whole debate unto itself), and articles on one's own parents, teachers, hometown, High School, etc, I think we need to be very careful about what we label as un-important or non-notable, and I think that very very few articles should fall under those labels. LordAmeth 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"The subject has been peer-reviewed'

What does this criteria mean? Does it mean that the article contains claims that have appeared in peer-reviewed work, or that the subject is an area where work gets peer reviewed, or something else? --- Charles Stewart 16:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC) (typos fixed)

The first. It has appeared in a peer-reviewed work. Marskell 16:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we then change this part to read The article contains information that has been peer reviewed? --- Charles Stewart 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of opposition, and on the grounds that the existing text didn't make clear sense, I've change the text to a minor variant of the above --- Charles Stewart 21:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)