Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:53, 8 March 2007

The idea of this page is to supercede Misplaced Pages:Notability and use this page as an overview for governing inclusion standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial comments

I like changing the name, I have issue with the "subjects must have encyclopedic value." though. I can easily see this being twisted to delete plenty of pop-culture, even the best sourced ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that this isn't central by any means. The governing principles would still be at the subject-specific notability guidelines for that topic. This is merely a centralized page to point people to the various policies and guidelines, it isn't meant to act as any sort of governing document. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal much better than the current notability guideline where I have a serious bone to pick with the primary notability criterion. In its current shape I can still envision some hand-waving over what "encyclopedic value" is supposed to mean, but I have trouble in seeing a good way around that. Focusing on more specific subject-related notability criteria is something I strongly agree with, since guidelines like WP:FICT and WP:MUSIC have done far more to help us in determining notability of specific subjects than the WP:N guideline has. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to reword it, given your and Night Gyr's concerns. Thanks for the input! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for going about this the Right Way. —Quarl 2007-03-07 13:23Z

Would you expect anything else from me? d;-) Thanks for your input so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive?

I think "comprehensive" should be clarified, or else people would get into useless arguments over whether there's enough info for a subject to be comprehensively covered. —Quarl 2007-03-07 13:29Z

Any suggestions? At the end of the day, I'd rather be having that discussion rather than "is this notable enough," but you have a valid point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the old issue with the definition of "non-trivial" sources, from a new angle. I'd say a good place to start would be to point out that "comprehensive" involves more than directory-style information (address, etc.) or purely statistical information. In theory, WP:NOT already covers that. Problem is, there're numerous vocal individuals who feel that any X (where X can be school, shopping mall, fictional mecha from a given series, band, or whatever that individual's interest happens to be) whose existence can be verified should be included. I don't have a good solution to suggest to that one. Shimeru 07:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the word comprehensive is too strong, since it implies that we have to have sources for every aspect of a subject in order to write about any aspect of it. I'm not sure what the right word is, though -- perhaps "substantial". —Celithemis 08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the point?

What is the point of this page - i.e. what does this add that isn't really already included in WP:NOTE? Is this just another example of instruction & policy creep? Dr Aaron 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• In my view, the most important thing is detaching the concept of "notability" from the concept of "verifiability". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• The most important thing is removing the stupid name, to stop people from misunderstanding what it is supposed to be. -Amarkov moo! 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• The point of this page is to have a contrast/cooperation with WP:ATT - a document that explains how we judge the worthiness of an article for inclusion. WP:N/WP:NOTE is incredibly controversial in its application, as judged by discussion at the talk page, and fails to address what the page intends to do. Thus, this page's intent is to act as a centralized starting point for users - this is what's necessary to make an article, and you can go here, here, and here for more information on these specific points. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the contradiction?

First, this says "an article's subject is appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages if sufficient information is available to write a comprehensive article on it." Then, it turns around and says "All articles on Misplaced Pages should generally meet a standard for notability for the subject matter it falls into." Why the contradiction? Many of the subject-specific guidelines contain rules of the form "a blurble is notable if it's more than 10 feet wide". This is why many people don't like the subject-specific guidelines. This is just inviting people to assert that their favorite blurble is notable, despite not having adequate coverage in good sources, is it not? Friday (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What contradiction? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Does it actually say somewhere "Notability is the only criteria for inclusion"? I don't understand why so many people think it is otherwise. -Amarkov moo! 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the people in the "topics need sufficient coverage in good sources to allow a non-permastub" camp do frequently think this should be a minimum requirement, I think. That's not to say there might not be other criteria also, but it's saying that this basic criterion is a requirement. To me (and, I think, a good deal of others) adequate coverage in sources is necessary, but not always sufficient. For example, things that are extremely specific might be deemed a poor topic for an article, despite having adequate coverage. Friday (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How can this be a proposal?

When it's a fork of WP:N which is a guideline? We shouldn't try to have two guidelines that cover essentially the same topic. Friday (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a fork. It's intended to act as a replacement. Have you bothered with the talk page at WP:N yet? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's too much repeating of the same crap over and over, and little communication going on. But, the solution is not to fork. Friday (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And no one is proposing a fork, so you have nothing to worry about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:N attempts to describe what makes a topic suitable for the encyclopedia. So does this page. Unless there's something I've missed, this is a fork. Friday (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to request that you read what was written here before commenting further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea but...

I can see the value in having a shorter and more concise guideline than WP:N; however, I think this one is too vague. It's fair enough for the guideline to direct the reader to the various category-specific notability guidelines (such as WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC), but the fact is that WP:N summarises the one major criterion that is common to most questions of notability: has it been the focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources? This is the most important criterion for article inclusion, and the one most commonly cited at WP:AFD. So isn't it convenient to have a guideline that summarises that particular point? Walton 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this isn't meant to be a governing document like WP:N is - it's simply meant to act as a document to summarize what makes an article worthy of inclusion, and how we handle articles that don't meet that standard. WP:N does not address "notability" well, as the talk page over there has shown, for inclusion or exclusion. At the end of the day, there isn't a "most important criterion" for inclusion, as people have said they all work together, so I believe it's more convienient to have a centralized page that addresses what governs inclusion, rather than trying to shoehorn a one-size-fits-all guideline into things that don't actually fit. Am I making any sense, I feel like I just rambled there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So is this a guideline proposal, or an essay? Friday (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If it needs a tag at all, I'd call it a guideline as it's nothing more than a directive toward other guidelines and policies, but my personal vision for it is that it's simply a page that explains what already exists in policy and our guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

When I said "most important criterion", I didn't mean to imply that it takes some sort of formal precedence over other criteria; however, it is undoubtedly the most commonly-cited notability criterion at AfD, and the most useful in deciding whether or not a borderline article merits inclusion. I realise that there are special exceptions to the "multiple non-trivial coverage" rule, but it's the test that we apply to most articles. WP:ATT isn't enough on its own, because an article which is not reliably sourced isn't automatically deletable; however, if the notability is in question and it is not reliably sourced, then it is deletable. I understand what you're saying about not being a "governing document", and I absolutely agree that the specific notability guidelines (WP:BIO and so on) are very important, as it would be absurd to apply exactly the same test to every article. But WP:N is a good general summary of what notability is all about. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is the aphorism to apply in this case, particularly as unnecessary renaming of policies or guidelines tends to confuse everyone. Walton 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the discussions at WP:N, however, it appears that it is broke. It doesn't appear that there's any actual agreement as to what "notability is all about," thus the attempts to reimagine the entire concept of article inclusion and how to direct users to the relevant policies and guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

seems toothless

I can't disagree with anything on the page. I can't because there's no actual content to disagree with. The page is a restatement of a fragment of WP:NOT and a few other policy pages. It provides no new or useful guidance to editors that I can see. I'm sure this is well-intentioned but I do not see this as a viable alternative to supercede the concept of Misplaced Pages:notability. Rossami (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat designed that way - WP:N is failing, as discussed on that talk page, and this does a better job of summarizing what the intent of WP:N allegedly is. It's not supposed to have teeth because it's not supposed to govern anything - everything it could possibly cover is already dealt with at existing pages. I mean, what are you looking for that this doesn't provide, and yet is workable in practice (which WP:N is not)? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to be moving things in the right direction. The most important difference from WP:N is simply the title. Hopefully it will help eliminate the problematic word notability from inclusion discussions. - SimonP 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Philwelch makes a good point about the Orwellian translation game we play with Misplaced Pages terminology on the Community Noticeboard; in the real world, and in pre-2006 deletion discussions, "notability" is pretty much equivalent to "importance or significance". Currently, in Misplaced Pages doublespeak, it means something more like "there's enough sources to write a complete article which meets WP:ATT and WP:NPOV". This is tolerable in AFD discussions, but as Jeff's pointed out before, it breaks apart very badly when it comes to speedy deletion. Many editors - and, more and more, newer administrators - see the "importance or significance" wording in WP:CSD#A7, equate it to "notability", and start speedying articles that clearly establish importance because the article doesn't specifically say anything that meets one of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. —Cryptic 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only redundant to, but stricter than, WP:N

Maybe I'm just missing something (quite possible, no coffee yet), but on a first reading this appears to be significantly stricter than WP:N - it requires that articles meet the rough equivalent of the primary notability criterion and one of the subject-specific guidelines. Compare what's here with the PNC:

• Such information should be published and independent of the subject... All articles on Misplaced Pages must abide by our policy on attribution - articles should be well-sourced and verifiable, preferably with independent third party reliable secondary sources.
• A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.

The only real difference is that the "multiple" and "non-trivial" requirements are handled by proxy through WP:ATT and WP:NPOV instead of being explicitly repeated. I'm undecided whether that's good or bad. On the one hand, it will likely cut down on wikilawyers arguing that things like four pages on a subject in the middle of a three-hundred-page book about something else, or a legal case that receives extensive media coverage throughout a country despite not being later cited as a precedent, are trivial. On the other, it increases the number of different pages we have to refer people to in deletion discussions, and may well result in us keeping articles that we shouldn't: for instance, if all of the available sources are either primary or trivial, it won't be possible to write a comprehensive article without running into insoluble original research problems. —Cryptic 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, your final worry isn't true - Ern Westmore and "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" are two examples of articles that have primary or trivial non-independent mentions, but are fairly comprehensive in scope. Besides, a guiding principle has been "when in doubt, don't delete" - certainly, keeping a number of pages we maybe shouldn't is a better result than deleting a number of pages we maybe should have kept, no? Regardless, this page is set to replace WP:N, which lacks consensus and, judging by the discussion, may never achieve it. Thus, this page, instead of setting up an arbitrary one-size-fits-all situation for notability, simply says "these our what we expect for article inclusion, and you can get more information by looking at these policies and guidelines." A centralized page. In some cases, it makes notability stricter, in others it relaxes things - that's ultimately the point, as notability differs from subject to subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, though, that the present system is working fine. I completely agree with Jeff that "when in doubt, don't delete" is a good rule; however, speaking as a frequent participant in AfDs, there is little to no "doubt" in most cases where notability is questioned. Generally, when an article is put up for AfD, it looks like it might be notable (hence not speediable under CSD A7), but there are no reliable sources to back it up. The AfD process gives the article a couple of days' grace; sometimes appropriate sources will be added while the article is at AfD (as at this recent AfD) and the article will be kept. If there are no reliable sources out there, or no one adds them, then the article gets deleted - but it can still be recreated in the future, with sources. So what's wrong with that process? You say the process is not working; show me a single article which has been wrongfully deleted due to abuse of WP:N, and I'll take this problem more seriously. Walton 20:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Starslip Crisis? Brian Peppers? Emmalina? Gregory Kohs? I'm glad you're so positive about this, I'm not, but even if it's working a lot at AfD does not mean that the community agrees with it as a primary criterion or as written - the amount of discussion at WT:N is staggering. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually this looks pretty good in general, but I'm concerned about lack of any mention that the bulk of sourcing should be secondary. Some subjects may receive significant mention in primary sources, but for editors to state anything beyond the obvious from those sources is original research. In that case, we're essentially acting as a webhost for the exact same information in the primary source, which of course fails WP:NOT, or interpreting primary source data on our own, which violates WP:ATT. It's only when a conclusion is stated in a secondary source that we can mention that conclusion, attributing it, of course, to said source. This would also work as a good anti-bias guard. If reliable secondary sources consider a subject notable enough to write a significant amount of information on, we write on it. If they don't, we don't. It's every bit in the spirit of WP:NOR that what we write, above all, should be at the discretion of sources, not at the discretion of editors. Seraphimblade 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We should only be making the case that's made at WP:ATT for that, nothing more. The bulk of sourcing should be of what's necessary, and I think this covers that. Please, by all means, edit away and tweak it if you think it's still far off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Weaker than WP:N

I would have thought this was obvious, but isn't this weaker than the PNC? The PNC says that the subject must be the primary focus of a third-party published work, and this doesn't. —Quarl 2007-03-08 08:29Z

Forget about the PNC, it's got nothing to do with anything here. Check the discussion over at WP:N for more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That talk page is a mess. I realize WP:AI does not use the PNC. I just wanted to state what I thought was obvious since others (see above) seem to think the opposite. —Quarl 2007-03-08 13:01Z

Okay, I misunderstood, sorry. Whether or not it's weaker would end up being based within the subject-specific guidelines, but this certainly pushes notability closer to WP:ATT rather than over it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ammended the "default" sentence to include "period of time" for publication

Just reading through it the only problem I had was with the default notability condition sentence. As written it left open the possibility of, for example, a well written article about a random sporting event or local crime story based on some articles on that day as being notable. To close that loophole, I appended that the third party information should be published "over a period of time (ie not in the same one or two day period)". As an example, a typical baseball game might have articles about it on the day after or day before the game. But a championship series game will have more extended coverage and independent articles that appear over a period of a week or two or more. The former would generally not be considered worthy of inclusion as a seperate article, but the latter would be.

Personally it doesn't matter much to me whether WP:N is used or this page is used as the "bare minimum notability for inclusion" guideline. I do, though, think there should ultimately only be one guideline page to avoid unnecessary duplication of discussion and effort. Dugwiki 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, that may be the case, but that's not something we can force. I may tweak your wording a bit more, but not yet - if anything, that's something that would be handled on a specific guideline rather than here. Thanks for looking and your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt my wording is optimal. The main thing is that, as a bottom line general rule, an article should have more than one source and the sources shouldn't all be from the same date. There are probably some exceptions to that rule, but by and large articles that don't meet that standard are very likely to not be something most editors would find worthy of inclusion. Most of us, for example, are suspicious of articles that only have a single source, and in particular for news events multiple sources all on the same day and no follow-up probably indicates it's a very limited event. Of course all guidelines will have a few exceptions, but if the guideline fits the bulk of the cases and most editors agree with the reasoning then it's probably a good guideline. Dugwiki 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Added line on fiction

I added a line on fictional subjects:

• Articles on fictional subjects or works of fiction should be shown to be encyclopedic in a context outside of the fictional universe. See WP:FICT for guidelines on writing about fictional subjects and works.

Any comments would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly and placed it in context w/WP:NOT, but it's otherwise sensible. I wish I had thought of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite looks a lot better, thanks. Seraphimblade 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Subarticle exception on fiction

I'm really not entirely sure about that, if we were to put that, we may as well not have WP:FICT. Usually, a fictional character can be covered "out of universe" just fine in the parent article. If there's enough out-of-universe information on the character (e.g. Superman), it should certainly have its own article, but usually a fictional character's entry growing large with in-universe information calls for some cutting, not putting it in a subarticle to accumulate more. Seraphimblade 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrmmmm. Actually, I think I just came up with a good "rule of thumb" for fictional character notability-just imagine using the character in casual conversation with a non-fan. "Who's that idiot walking on the train tracks think he is, Superman?" "I hate my new boss, I'd rather have Darth Vader." "That guy has more gadgets then Batman." All of these make sense. On the other hand, "Wow, that guy has better aim then Vash the Stampede!" is likely to get a blank stare. I'm not sure how this would be worded exactly, though? Seraphimblade 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the language is necessary, only because I think it confuses the multiple uses of subarticles, but I do know that it reflects current practice, and if WP:FICT is different from that, it needs to be adjusted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT actually suggests placing detailed material, annotations, etc., on Wikibooks. That would seem to me to be a far better option-having an encyclopedia article on the work and on truly iconic fictional characters here, and then do a more detailed annotation and "in-universe" analysis of the characters over there. We can do a softlink box to a Wikibook in an article. A lot of current fictional character articles are probably great transwiki candidates over there. Seraphimblade 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, analysis being different than description and information here. I wouldn't go around transwikiing a bunch of stuff, but we're sliding a bit off topic, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Subarticles as in gameplay subarticles for, say, a video game series as a whole. The article will naturally not have as much out of universe infromation as its parent article, which has already established notability and need for comprehensiveness. — Deckiller 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Notability", yes. "Need for comprehensiveness", no. We have biographies on some people, that doesn't mean we need to "comprehensively" have biographies on all people. We have articles on some companies, that doesn't mean we need to "comprehensively" have articles on all people. Encyclopedia articles should be an overview of the subject as it relates to the real world. Wikibooks is for "comprehensive" texts which can cover all possible facets of a subject. (They also, to my knowledge, allow a greater degree of original research and interpretation of a primary source, so long as the claim is not ridiculous or ludicrous). An article about a video game should be an article about the game's "real-world" importance, with a plot synopsis covering the main characters. Have a look over at Wikibooks at b:Half-Life Fact File. That's far more comprehensive on Half-Life then we could ever get here, which is why transing to Wikibooks is the perfect way to do it. Seraphimblade 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So I see you're against subarticles and comprehensiveness in general then. Very well, I won't push the argument further, because I know you'll just strongly disagree. — Deckiller 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against subarticles "in general", so to speak, but I'm certainly against use of them to include everything conceivable that wouldn't support its own article in any other case. For a subject like World War II, subarticles are absolutely necessary, there are tons of notable subfacets to the subject, trying to write about it all in one page would be a 5 MB blob. On the other hand, the vast majority of fictional works can be covered in a single article, with a quick plot synopsis providing an encyclopedic overview of who the characters are and what the major events were. If a bunch of "in-universe" stuff is starting to pile up on a fictional work, it's very likely time to cut, not to start spinning subarticles. However, "comprehensiveness" should never be a sole criteria for inclusion. Seraphimblade 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Also, we are rather offtopic for purposes of this specific proposal, for which I apologize. I've started work on a separate proposal to address the issue.) I still don't particularly like the subarticle bit for this proposal though, it effectively makes the whole thing meaningless (just call it a subarticle!) Seraphimblade 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; subarticles for individual games are usually uncalled for, unless they are significant enough to the outside world and/or numerous in-universe sources to warrent a general page (Jay and Silent Bob, Samus Aran, etc). However, subarticles for a 40+ game series, on the other hand, are fine, because it requires more space to describe the main points on a level consistent with the coverage norm on Misplaced Pages. Naturally, these general subarticles probably have more reliable sources and out of universe information than, say, an article based on a fictional organization appearing in a video game. — Deckiller 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that's such a good rule of thumb -- it relies on the editor's own cultural context. I'm not so sure the "Vash the Stampede" remark would sound odd, for instance... if the speaker were in Japan. (Outdated, perhaps.) And by the same token, I think you might get a blank stare from a lot of people if you said "I'm so tired I could sleep like Endymion," or "She's about as faithful as Cressida." Generally, I would think the major protagonists and antagonists of most works that merit inclusion probably merit articles themselves. Shimeru 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All very true, which is why I presented it as a way of making a rough guess rather than anything which should be solely relied upon. The best method of judging how appropriate a subject is would still always be to look at how much secondary source material is out there on it. Seraphimblade 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedicity

Hi.

I saw this: "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and subjects must have encyclopedic value for the project. " But this does not explain what "encyclopedic" means. I think that should be defined. All it does is point to WP:NOT, which only tells us what is not encyclopedic, not what is. 74.38.32.195 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything that's not in WP:NOT :). And also use common sense. It's not feasable to enumerate everything that's encyclopedic... —Quarl 2007-03-08 08:24Z

I actually think a valid point has been raised here; "encyclopedic" isn't clearly defined, nor is there a consensus as to what, exactly, it means. That's essentially what the inclusionism-deletionism debate is all about, and it's the reason why we need WP:N. Otherwise it's reliant on users' own subjective judgements. A vote at WP:AFD saying Delete, not encyclopedic would be no use to anyone, and is virtually another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The reason why we need WP:N is because it provides an objective standard for inclusion of articles, one that isn't dependent on whether or not some users view a topic as "encyclopedic" or not. Otherwise, AfDs will effectively become a popularity contest. Walton 08:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some kind of inclusion guide line is necessary, whatever its name, but I would add that notability is orthogonal from encyclopedicity. All professor biographies can be encyclopedic, but not all professors are notable. I think what Badlydrawnjeff is trying to do is say that all professor biographies should be included as long as there is enough attributable information to write one. —Quarl 2007-03-08 10:24Z

That's exactly it, though-where do we draw the line at "enough information?" WP:NOT a directory, of professors or anything else, so if we say "Include all professors if verifiable", we'll just get another subjective argument. Some may say "John Smith is a professor of basket-weaving at Podunk Community College" is enough, and that's probably verifiable through the college directory, but little else would be. Looking at secondary sources is a good way to figure out if something is encyclopedic-since an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, we should be working largely from secondary sources, not primary ones. "How much secondary source material is available?" tends to be a pretty good metric of how suitable something is. Seraphimblade 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but I have to add that there should be multiple secondary sources. To borrow your example above, it might be possible to write a biography of John Smith from the Podunk Community College newsletter, or from Basket-Weavers' Weekly. This would make the biography verifiable and accurate, but would do nothing to demonstrate notability - whereas if multiple sources from several works are provided, then his notability is demonstrated. Walton 14:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Something can be notable with zero "secondary sources." You're still working from a point of view that isn't entirely sensible - articles must have sources, but for attribution purposes, not necessarily to establish notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this content be merged into WP:ATT

Looking at this proposal, it doesn't really have it's own stand-alone identity. It just seems to repeat a lot of other policies and guidelines, mostly WP:ATT. Based on our normal editing criteria for articles, as it stands now, this would be an excellent merge candidate. Dhaluza 12:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. A merge to WP:ATT would be inappropriate - this deals with the inclusion of articles. Please see the discussions above and at WP:N to see where this comes from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)