Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Impossible situation should be addressed

Disclaimer: I am neither a deletionist nor inclusionist.

There is now a bolded comment that all sections/criteria must be fulfilled, depth of coverage, duration, geographical scope, diversity of sources, and lasting effect. There are at least 2 problems with this:

1. Wikipedia doesn't follow this. If these criteria are applied harshly to one article but not to another, Wikipedia loses credibility.

2. These criteria are too stringent.

How about this brainstorming proposal (brainstorming is to say an idea without being afraid to say it. If we are too afraid to discuss, then the train can crash because everyone is afraid to say that there's a mechanical problem with the train).

Possible addition: In general, notable articles imply historical significance. If three of the criteria are met by a reasonable margin, then notability can be assumed.

For deletionist, consider a lot of these murder articles that is tabloid news. They have geographical scope and diversity of sources. Clearly no lasting effect. Clearly no duration. When was the last time you heard of the Tim McLean, man whose head was cut off in Canada? That shows no duration. The depth of coverage is weak. So that's not a clear keep.

For example, if there is a big regional event or disaster where there is repeated coverage 20 years later, that satisfies the duration criteria. It probably has a lasting effect. With a good depth of coverage, that's good. However, the international press might not have covered it. The diversity of sources is partly filled, partly unfilled because much of the coverage is regional.

The BTK killer in Wichita, Kansas, USA is different. depth of coverage-probably, duration-possibly, geographical scope-yes, diversity of sources-yes, and lasting effect-no or ?. By having the 3 necessary criteria, this is a clear keep. Requiring all criteria and there's a fight.

Delta Flight 191 - depth of coverage-yes, duration-for a week or two then months later went the report is published, geographical scope-yes, diversity of sources-yes, and lasting effect-no? By having the 3 necessary criteria, this is a clear keep. Requiring all criteria and there's a potential fight though usually crashes are not the subject of AFDs.

The United Kingdom general election, 2005. From a gut standpoint, clearly notable. From a historical standpoint, notable. Now look at the criteria. depth of coverage-yes, duration-possibly not, geographical scope-yes, diversity of sources-yes, and lasting effect-yes or no?. By having the 3 necessary criteria, this is a clear keep. Requiring all criteria and there's a potential fight.

Any comments on this brainstorming idea? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't follow this" That's not a problem unique to this guideline or that we can necessarily do anything about here. Rules on Wikipedia in general are not uniformly enforced due to the volunteer nature of the project; there are no paid police going about seeing that policy is enforced, only well-meaning vigilantes whose participation waxes and wanes. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I wrote it, if an article has a lasting effect then it can be included even if it fails one (or more) of the other requirements. In essence, [a AND b AND c AND d] OR e. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I just updated the summaries of the other criteria to make them clearer. I was wondering about the lasting effect criterion, as it is out of the ordinary as the only one that doesn't assess sources. Its usefulness is to allow events with clear and immediate impacts to be considered to be notable, but I wonder if it should be rolled into PERSISTENCE, so there'd be just four criteria: INDEPTH, GEOSCOPE, DIVERSITY, and PERSISTENCE/EFFECT (i.e. LASTING, either lasting coverage or a lasting effect)? Fences&Windows 21:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes that Fences made changes things enough that discussion is helpful. What Wordsmith wrote above (right here, up about 3 cm, 21:20 7 Jan) is very reasonable. But what Fences changed is not what Wordsmith is saying here. Fence's change is that all 5 criteria must be met. Fences just now made it even more stringent. Before it said under one of the criteria that meet it and it is likely to be notable. Fences changed it to if it doesn't meet it, it's non-notable. There is a real difference. Before there was conflicting criteria (say X and Y) and Fences just changed it to make it agree with X, took out Y. This needs some discussion.

I will change it back to an alternate non-conflicting version for illustration purposes (see history) but revert it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff: Possible change #1 left side, Possible change #2 (what Fences and Windows changed it to) right side http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28events%29&action=historysubmit&diff=336485426&oldid=336485159 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make it more stringent, I made it consistent - it wasn't intended to be the case that a single criterion would rule in an article. Wordsmith's statement clashes with this wording, which I did not add: "In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event must meet all of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article". Wordsmith's interpretation of the criteria is notability is met by GEOSCOPE+DIVERSITY+INDEPTH+PERSISTENCE or EFFECT, the guideline currently states GEOSCOPE+DIVERSITY+INDEPTH+PERSISTENCE+EFFECT and I'd like to change it to GEOSCOPE+DIVERSITY+INDEPTH+LASTING(PERSISTENCE or EFFECT).

p.s. The UK 2005 General Election did get persistent coverage, see [1][2]. As for a lasting effect, it decided the government of the United Kingdom for the subsequent parliament. The BTK killer meets GEOSCOPE, DIVERSITY, PERSISTENCE, INDEPTH, probably not EFFECT. Delta Flight 191 passes GEOSCOPE, DIVERSITY, INDEPTH, PERSISTENCE and EFFECT: "The investigation of the 1985 crash of Delta Flight 191 at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport provided new clues about how wind shear creates microbursts." It was the worst aircrash in Texas history.[3] That's from 2005, twenty years on. Here's a local news article about the lack of a memorial from 2008:[4]. It's cited as a case study here here and here. As for the Murder of Tim McLean, passes GEOSCOPE, DIVERSITY, INDEPTH, probably PERSISTENCE, probably not EFFECT. The verdict was reported globally,[5][6][7] The case was mentioned by Winnipeg Sun as the top local crime story of 2009,[8] and the top local story of the decade.[9]. So both my proposal and Wordsmith's interpretation would judge all of your examples to be notable. Fences&Windows 23:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem with using past AFDs as a guide is that with deleted articles, it is difficult for non-administrators to see what was written in the articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fences and Windows' suggestion is a good start, but I also intended that if an article failed, say GEOSCOPE but had a lasting effect on the small region, then it should pass overall. Any ideas on incorporate this? The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur that solely not satisfying GEOSCOPE would be a poor reason for deletion. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How about something simple like "An event in the news is unlikely to be notable unless it meets at least four of the following five criteria." The truth is I have hard time believing that any event that did meet any four of these criteria wouldn't be notable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a workable solution to the ambiguity. It appears to be in the spirit of the guideline as it was approved. The Wordsmith^Communicate 09:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost entirely agree, but just running thru the combinations, I'm having trouble seeing when something failing INDEPTH would still be notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At the extreme end: 9/11 was notable, perhaps deserving of an article, before there was time or scope for any INDEPTH to be addressed. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PERSISTENCE criterion

While we're talking criteria (Eff|Depth&Pers&Geo&Div), PERSISTENCE is not phrased as a criteria quite as the others are. It almost de-criterionises itself in it's text. I would rather see it at a definite discreet criteria, but with something like a 3-of-4 rule. But PERSISTENCE should maybe be something like (DURATION x INTENSITY-OF-UPDATES)) - something that gets intensely _updated_ coverage 9/11 Balloon Boy, should pass the PERSISTENCE criteria sooner/easier than something that gets only a twice-daily update (say, Corey Delaney (rightly deleted)). Only beginning to formulate my thinking on this, but it seems to me there is a distinction between news-reports where every hour (for many hours) many outlets repeat the same titillating tidbits, and news-reports where every hour (for many hours) outlets strive to report the latest developments, and we could use that distinction here. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that persistence takes a long time. Twice daily is not really persistence. Persistence is when an event is mentioned months or years later. At least, that would be persistence without question. I dare not try to assess what hour the TV reports are made because that would be a nightmare to monitor. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That idea goes against WP:NOTNEWS. A short burst of news reports, no matter how intense, does not in itself give notability. Counting the intensity of reporting is not something I support. Fences&Windows 16:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

??? - I'm in no way suggesting that, of itself, persistence gives notability - however it's measured. We list here a bunch of criteria that must be met IN ADDITION to persistence. But if persistence is to be REQUIRED (as it currently is in the guideline) "a news event must meet [EFFECT or] ... all of the rest of the following criteria to qualify..." - then it must be a criteria which can be met in those instances when breaking news related articles are appropriate. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me restart with a more usable, less rambling, angle. PERSISTENCE doesn't have the bold italic "An event ... notable" short form, per the other criteria. It should do - and then it will be easier to build the logic which appropriately incorporates it with the other criteria. Something like "An event which receives coverage well after the event itself has passed is likely to be notable" except better. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For something like 2010 Haiti earthquake it is clear there is a lasting effect becasues a major city was leveled and people were already discussing relief and rebuilding efforts a few minutes after the event. Similarly Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was obviously going to have a lasting effect because it immediately caused changes in airline security practices. However, it is not going to be clear that something like runaway bride case or balloon boy hoax is going to be notable unless the coverage persists beyond a 24 hour news cycle precisely because there was no obvious long term effect. It think the real truth is that persistent coverage is effectively an alternative to long term effect (in affect an event like balloon boy HAS a lasting effect because the coverage has persisted so long). Rusty Cashman (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that persistence was when something was covered years or months later. I didn't think about calling it persistence if an event is covered a second day but I am open to hear others' opinions. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, going along with Rusty Cashman, I'll buy that, but probably persistence means something like 'weeks' (at a minimum) rather than months? So what does distinguish Balloon Boy from Corey Delaney on their respective 'event day #2' - clearly something fairly obvious, but simultaneously something quite subtle. Does the guideline accommodate that something? Is it just "expected Effects and Persistence"? Does that go against WP:CRYSTAL - is it wrong to explicitly consider probable/expected Effects and/or Persistence for breaking news articles. (ie: as a reason to delete those where the consensus is that there won't be any Effect or Persistence, a la Corey Delaney, but to allow those articles like Balloon Boy time to achieve expected Effect or Persistence, while benefiting from the intense multi-editor efforts put into improving the article (through encyclopaedic fact-gathering etc) while the news is still breaking (thus resulting in a much better article). ?? ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

NB - My reading of WP:CRYSTAL shows no conflict. ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Persistence and effect

I came here as a result of the closing admin's plug at this AfD.

My concern is that parts of this would change consensus on that kind of AfD, when consensus does not exist to do so. The spirit of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT are already covered by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL respectively. If you don't think those sections cover events properly, consider amending them instead, rather than creating a separate version here. I'm vehemently opposed to EFFECT in particular, which seems to suggest that an event article should not be created/be deleted until the ultimate outcome has been established. On that basis, we should delete Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final), as one goal was widely reported but achieved nothing, the other was a good goal that otherwise changed nothing, and the match was otherwise non-notable. WFCforLife (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing the point of your objection Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final) would clearly be notable under this guideline. It has several sources. Some of them are at least national in scope (BBC, FIFA, and CNN). Some of the news stories are clearly non trivial and non routine coverage. Furthermore some of them like [10], [11], and [12] were written a decade or more after the event so persistence of coverage is not a problem. Similarly the succesful arguments at the AfD you mention were clearly based on the fact that the media coverage was non routine and extensive. I think that the wording of this guidline would have resulted in a quicker more decisive keep decision as it avoids the misunderstanding that all media coverage of sports is routine, which sometimes arises from a superficial reading of some of the wording in WP:Notability. The only way I can see where your argument makes sense is if you are somehow misreading "having a lasting effect likely makes an event notable", which this proposed guideline does say, to mean "not having a lasting effect means an event is likely not notable", which it does not say. So as far as I can see your argument is either a misunderstanding of the proposed guideline or a strawman.Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of what this is trying to achieve is already covered by the two sections I've previously quoted. Clarifying them is a good thing. Attempting (accidentally or deliberately) to change them is not. The way this is currently worded would in my opinion have changed the course of the AfD I have cited. I'm sorry to see that you think I'm a "strawman". I forgive you, but likewise please forgive me for reading sections of this and thinking that others decided "WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS aren't working as well as we want them to, let's find a way around that." I'm assuming good faith and believe it was simply an oversight, but that was my impression.

I would propose the following changes to PERSISTENCE:

The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established. A burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable, although the fact that an event happened recently does not alone make it non-notable. Editors should not speculate on whether an event will receive further coverage. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs.

And removing this from EFFECT:

A lasting effect may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs.

If you leave that sentence in a section (and indeed paragraph) on its own, expect to see it cause more problems than it solves, with both inclusionists and deletionists quoting EFFECT as justification for keeping or deleting a particular event. However, in context of the reworded persistence above it's a very valid point. The other bit I've inserted is a reminder that "It's just happened. Delete!" is a very weak argument, just as the section as a whole is a reminder that "Turn on the TV and tell me this isn't important. Keep!" is equally weak. WFCforLife (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We intended this proposal to roughly reflect common practice at AFD, as a starting point from which to gauge consensus. This proposed change does seem to me like a reasonable attempt to clarify that. Unless somebody else objects, I see no problem with making this change

I think clarifying the intent of these sections is fine. The suggested changes to WP:PERSISTENCE are along the lines I'd been thinking myself; the section could have been (mis)interpreted as ruling out articles on recent events as by definition you can't show any persistence of coverage! The point of "...may be difficult or impossible..." was not to say that recent events are automatically assumed to be non-notable, but simply a statement that trying to apply the principle of having a lasting effect or not to a recent event might be very tricky. Having a demonstrable lasting effect for a recent event is a strong inclusion factor, but not being able to demonstrate one isn't a good exclusion criterion. On the other hand, a lack of a lasting effect for a more distant event could be a reason to doubt its notability. Fences&Windows 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some edits to clarify the meaning of those sections:[13]. Fences&Windows 18:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain myself without appearing self contradictory. So I'll take the two sections separately. For PERSISTENCE, I think the change you have made is an extremely good one. The last sentence of the first paragraph in particular is perfectly worded, making the point that the recentness of an event is in no way related to its notability, but equally that this alone does not mean an event should be kept until we can prove it has gone away.

Although EFFECT is trying to take a similar stance, I think the way the last paragraph is worded is at odds with WP:CRYSTAL, and for want of a better phrase it "seems to favour the inclusionists".

The extent and nature of the effect itself will usually take weeks or months to determine. However, that does not mean that an article should have a free pass to being kept on the off-chance that there is an effect. The AfD which brought me here (and discussion on it about this incident) is a good case study. The full effect has yet to be revealed, but the escalation to diplomatic level (and the fact that a Californian news agency considers a soccer spat worth reporting), an extraordinary general meeting of the global governing body, and the veracity of the calls for technology in the game were all strong indicators. Looking at the way the AfD unfolded these factors are in my mind what made the difference, as before they were pointed out there were calls for the event to be buried.

Maybe I'm overcomplicating the whole situation, and I've taken four paragraphs to reach the conclusion that "possible yet unproven" should be changed to "likely/probable yet unproven". Or maybe it could do with a rewrite. Hopefully it was food for thought in any case. WFCforLife (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not any event has a lasting effect, this is a matter of opinion only, and any such assertion must be backed up by significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis from reliable secondary sources. If it is not supported by externally validated information, then that is speculation, hearsay or, at worst, original research. I propose altering this section as follows:

Events are often considered to be notable they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. Such a claim must be supported by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that support this view.

The current wording on its own is not acceptable, becuasue it is based on a statement of mass attribution ("Events are often considered...") without having to provide evidence. The wording of this section needs to be changed.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary for the discussion tag

There's a contradictory passage that needs to be addressed. The inclusion criteria states " In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event must meet all of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article:" then lists 5 criteria, depth of coverage, duration of coverage, geographical scope, diversity of sources, and lasting effects. However, when reading each of the criteria, it appears that if an event has international coverage, it is likely to be notable.

The conflicting guidelines is if an event has international coverage, it is likely to be notable in the middle of this guideline, but at the beginning of the guideline, it is not notable unless it meets all 5 criteria.

Another problem is The Wordsmith made a very good observation that an event with lasting effects (while it probably has lots of coverage) is one criteria which makes an event notable. This is reasonable because a lasting effects event is probably a historical event. What better to have an encyclopedia than a historical event.

Possible solutions to resolve the contraction:

A. Make the earlier part a requirement, that is, all criteria must be satisfied. Revise the criteria to say that meeting it does NOT make it necessarily notable.

Pro:
Meeting the notability guideline makes the article an iron clad keep in AFDs. Many tabloid news articles are disqualified.

Con:
Wikipedia behavior does not follow this so the guideline is trying to shape Wikipedia against the consensus that is actually practiced.

B. Make the earlier part a goal of assured notability, that is, satisfying all the criteria is a very strong indicator of notability. However, an event can satisfy notability by a very strong compliance with only one criteria.

Pro:
That's what is happening now a lot, particularly with tabloid news stories.

Con:
Too weak.

C. In between A and C. Make the earlier part a goal of assured notability, that is, satisfying all the criteria is a very strong indicator of notability. However, an event can satisfy notability by a very strong compliance with the majority of criteria.

Pro:
Wikipedia is compromise and this is a compromise. Also allows for regional events that keep on being reported, sometimes decades later.

Con:
Deletionists may not be satisfied with this.

These pro and cons are not meant to represent everyone's opinion but is a genuine effort to summarize the situation for the discusssion tag on the main notability (events) page. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"It appears that if an event has international coverage, it is likely to be notable." That's definitely not the intention of the guideline, that would directly clash with NOTNEWS and with the usual outcome of AfD. Fences&Windows 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I already solved this issue of GEOSCOPE by correcting the criterion summaries, which are misleading and do not reflect the wording or intent of the guideline. See this version. Fences&Windows 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ::That's what is written now and that conflicts with the part above it that requires all criteria to be met. The problem with requiring all criteria is if the event is not covered internationally, then it's notability could be questioned. It still could be covered nationally, but then we are bowing down to a very few news organizations. In Canada, it might be limited to the CBC. If Wikipedia notability is restricted to what the CBC tells us to print, we are serious bowing down to them.

A better idea is to note that the majority of criteria must be strongly met (not just barely met) which would allow maybe one (such as international coverage) to be unmet and still deemed notable. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Fences, please be patient and don't go "correcting it". What you are doing is like this:

A and B conflict so you change B to fit with A.

However, if A and B conflict, one could conclude that A needs to be modified to fit B.

This needs some discussion and I'm confident that we'll reach a conclusion since we're in agreement mostly already. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The summary of GEOSCOPE is wrong and it needs correcting. It should not suggest that international coverage alone is sufficient, otherwise every single "and finally" story that made it into a few national papers would be notable. The wording of GEOSCOPE already makes the allowance that "Events that have a demonstrable impact on the region, such as city-wide elections, are presumed to be notable enough for an article", so it is not a "bright line" demanding national or international coverage. "National coverage" also does not just mean "national news media" such as the CBC: coverage by media beyond the locality of the event would count as "national", e.g. in Canada an event in Vancouver that got coverage in major regional papers in Ottawa, Manitoba etc. would have "national coverage". Fences&Windows 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This idea represents progress! Other than cleaning up the writing this discussion might be solved by one change to one sentence.

Old: In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event must meet all of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article:

Possible New: In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event must meet all of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article or, if one criteria is not met, must solidly meet the other criteria.

This is the most flexible way. Another possibility is changing the geoscope section to read something similar to what Fences and Windows suggests, so "Events that have a reasonable impact on the region are presumed to meet the criteria for geographical scope" (but leaving out the mention of elections). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that notability should be assessed on the basis of published sources, and events that are given substantial attention by significant published sources should qualify for having independent articles. There should not be some special requirement that news events have to meet above and beyond what is required of other subjects. Everyking (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus here is that events do have to meet a higher standard. This was started as a response to Colorado balloon incident (though that article would now meet all of the requirements). Consensus developed to approve a stricter standard for events in an RFC. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am expressing my opinion. My opinion does not change just because some other people have a different opinion. In any case, is there in fact a consensus? Here I am, expressing the view that notability should be defined according to attention given to the subject by published sources: when determining consensus, shouldn't that viewpoint be considered? Everyking (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you're certainly welcome to express your opinion. And yes, the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of promiting this guideline, with the idea that it would be more strict. Consensus can change, but I don't think it has in the short time since this guideline was promoted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree that there is a weakness in "our consensus". This whole discussion to make a guideline is currently largely driven by 3-4 people, me being one of them. We each have slight nuanced differences but agree largely. However, "our consensus" is different from many opinions in Wikipedia.(just look at AFDs) Everyking's view is not uncommon and isn't, at the same time, a voice for having lots of tabloid news of the day articles. That's why I'm questioning whether we need to have a little leeway in the guidelines, not a strict "must meet all criteria" requirement. By having a little leeway, we increase the chances of success because it includes the views of more Wikipedians leaving only a small pro-tabloid news of the day faction remaining.

Furthermore, the old consensus approved a guideline that conflicts with itself! That really needs fixing. We can't assume that the first part was the correct part and the latter part the error. It could be the opposite. I wish that I noticed it earlier when the original "vote" was taking place. :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have concerns about the notion that consensus on a matter of such scale can be developed around such a small group of people. If a guideline is deemed to be adopted, it will be invariably cited in AfDs—many of which will get far more participation than this discussion. Isn't that somewhat backwards? If the whole thing is to make sense, then broad policy ideas should be confirmed by large numbers of people, and those ideas should be reflected in lower-level decisions involving fewer people. Furthermore, "event" articles of the sort this discussion is seeking to eliminate are often kept at AfD, sometimes by majority vote. Shouldn't the standard reflect actual practice—shouldn't they reflect what the community supports in the individual cases that arise? Everyking (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem at AFDs is that there are "I think it's notable" votes. This guideline seeks to give standards to what exactly is notable (once the contradiction is fixed). I think a little flexibility, like meeting all criteria but allowing one unmet one if the others are solidly met, will capture more support at AFDs. It might be the smart thing to do.

It's sort of like driving. In Germany and Finland, driving testing and standards are very strict. You have to know how to drive a stick shift, are tested in night driving and day driving, have to be able to steer going backwards, etc. Americans and Canadians would generally fail. However, if Americans fail, they need a car and will drive anyway since there is no bus from downtown Alamogordo, New Mexico to suburban Lubbock, Texas. So American driving testing is made a little slacker so most people can drive but is stringent enough that really bad drivers, like blind people, don't drive. The same way may be good for these guidelines. Have American driving guidelines, not German ones. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there are two major solutions for solving the contradiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)_contradiction_1_(strict_guidelines)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)_contradiction_2_(looser_guidelines) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that if an event has lasting effects, it is automatically notable. This seems reasonable it becomes a historical event, which is very encyclopedia. I will make the change to the guidelines. I'm not trying to force a change or sneak it through, but that seems widely accepted. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble thinking of an example where not passing INDEPTH would be okay. Here's an example of the problem: Small group of random people is killed (e.g in a war/occupation/"police action"), thus having an EFFECT (people died), but the event receives only cursory coverage (e.g. "War Clippings Foo War" : "- X,Y,Z killed [description of cause]") thus failing INDEPTH. Does this really merit an article, or should it instead just be mentioned in the main one? Or is my concern too hypothetical? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That might support the proposal that if it doesn't meet one criteria, it can still be an article by solidly meeting the other criteria. The 2nd link above incorporates this "solidly" phrase. Let's consider the hypothetical example. Depth (doesn't meet). However, if the other criteria are solidly met, including lots of coverage years later (duration), geographical scope (national or international coverage), many sources (diversity of coverage), then it does seem notable. I suspect that the XYZ killing that you mention fails depth and duration. With the modifying word "solidly", that would mean that the guidelines are still quite restrictive.

Also remember that having a reasonable guideline makes the guideline useful. If it is theoretically too strict, then the guideline will be ignored and that helps nobody. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My point was that perhaps both INDEPTH and EFFECT should be required for the nearly-automatic Yes to notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I still suspect we may be over complicating things I think that if an article meets any four of the five criteria it is going to be notable. The reason for this is that some of the combinations you are worrying about are practically impossible in the real world. For example in practice if a story, even balloon boy hoax recieves coverage over an extended duration from diverse sources with a large geographic scope, some of that coverage will inevitably be in depth. Similarly it is almost impossible for an even to have a lasting effect without it being covered for an extended duration and in depth. For example a criminal act that causes a change in the law will inevitably be revisted in the news during the legislative process and when the law goes into effect. My point is these are not really independant criteria. They correlate, which means some combinations are impossible. Another simple way of saying things might be something like: "A notable news event will generally meet several of the following criteria." Remember this is a guideline, it is supposed to offer suggestions that encourages the application of common sense. Not a set of rigid rules.Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken; too hypothetical. Just thought I should make sure. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rusty's comments of not a set of rigid rules may be his plan of enforcement but we must be prepared to deal with severe drama and fighting between the supporters of the tabloid news of the day story who could logically argue that no rules apply or that there's a lot of national coverage.

Rusty's assumption is mostly correct that it is almost impossible for a lasting effects event to qualify by other means. Special treatment given to lasting effects is probably good because lasting effects are so profound and the same as a historical event, that such statement (lasting effects are notable) would prevent arguing and allow such an event to be an article.

We shouldn't assume that events either meet all of the 5 criteria or none of them. In practice, there will be weak subjects that meet a few of them and subjects that solidly meet most, but not all of them.

To focus the discussion, could we consider the proposal number 2 and determine if this is ok or completely unacceptable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)_contradiction_2_(looser_guidelines)

I think it's ok but am open to hear disagreements.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either propsoal is acceptable as they are currently worded. Proposal A is way stronger than what we intended and sets the bar for notability way too high. My concern with proposal B is the use of the word all. It makes it seem like the criteria only apply if all of them are met, rather than that the criteria are indicators of possible notability which is the case. Here is another try: "Any notable event will meet several of the following criteria (usually 3 or 4 of them) , and an event that meets all of them will almost always be notable." That avoids the pitfall (as I see it) of your proposal B, which is that it is worded as an all or nothing thing, and avoids the pitfall that was pointed out in my first counter proposal, which is that it didn't provide a guideline that helps eliminate arguments over obviously non notable articles.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rusty's idea has been incorporated into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)_contradiction_2A_(looser_guidelines)

To me this seems reasonable. It excludes the tabloid news of the day story but, according to Rusty, is not like Proposal A which is "way stronger than what we intended and sets the bar for notability way too high." Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than opaquely forking the whole page, could you just explain how it would differ from the current version? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

After trying to describe possible changes, I thought that just having a version for people to see would be more useful. Version 1 is the restrictive version that all criteria must be met. Version 2A is the version that says that most criteria must be met. There is no version that says that anything is notable just because there is a burst of news activity. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about version 2A

There's been useful discussion for the past few days but nothing definitive on what to do. May I suggest a vote-like discussion?

Version 2A essentially says that most of the criteria should be solidy met but allows an article to pass without having to meet 100% of the criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)_contradiction_2A_(looser_guidelines)

Note: This is NOT the usual support or oppose. It is simply to gauge whether more discussion is needed to develop this proposal or whether this proposal is so bad that it must die.

At least support the general idea

1. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A bad idea, should be discarded; instead the guideline should be....

• This whole discussion is a mess! Stop creating new versions, sections, and votes, and try concisely discussing what might need changing. I am losing track of what is at issue, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Fences&Windows 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This vote was to see if we should continue to discuss 2A. The issue has yet to be resolved. The basic issue is if we should have a strict 5 criteria that an article must meet or it will be deleted. If it is strong on 4 of the criteria but if it is questionable that it meets 1 criteria, it is deletable. An alternative is to require either meeting all of the criteria or, if it doesn't meet one, should either meet or solidly meet the others. So the basic question is whether all 5 MUST be met. Opinions? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Similar to what I said above, Suomi, please just post a concise diff between your proposed wording and the current wording. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We have yet to decide on the major issue. The links to 1 and 2A are just sample language. If one wants descriptions, 1 is that all 5 criteria must be strict met. Some say this is too stringent and more stringent that what Wikipedia actually does. 2A is that all 5 criteria should be met but an allowance is made to let one criteria slip. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Basis for change

An editor above explained to me that this whole proposal originated from opposition to the inclusion of the article about the Balloon boy hoax. In other words, the idea here is to tighten the restrictions because most editors disagreed with the deletionist position that an encyclopedia shouldn't have an article about an event that they consider "silly".

As a basis for change, does that really hold up to scrutiny? Is it appropriate to attempt to change a guideline in response to losing a debate in another forum? It seems like nothing more than dressed-up forum-shopping.

I suggest that these five points are merely a substitute for one broad principle: the article subject must not be something that appears silly or trivial according to traditional, Britannica-style judgments about the importance of a subject. (Perhaps exceptions can be made if the event took place a long time ago—see Mary Toft, Manchester Mummy, and Cock Lane ghost.)

Naturally that doesn't sound like a very good principle—"don't write about silly stuff"—but I think it encapsulates the deletionist position quite well. My preference is that we disregard all this talk about passing all five points or four out of five points or whatever, since it's all ultimately predicated on subjective—and silly, really—judgments about the "long-term importance" of article subjects, which are inherited from a Britannica-based conception of encyclopedic form. Instead, let's model our definition of notability on the degree of public attention received by the subject, evaluated through published sources. Let's hold "serious" and "silly" subjects to the same standard. Everyking (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for any of the other editors involved in this effort, but my particpation had nothing to do with balloon boy hoax, but rather with a number of AfD fights over events (some quite serious like murders and thefts and local elections) that had recieved a little routine news coverage (sometimes a single wire service article or a local news paper story). I get very nervous about saying a topic is too "silly" for an article. Rather I would rather (as this guideline for the most part does) make judgements about whether a topic has recieved sufficient coverage to be notable. In the end balloon boy hoax] is notable where as the 16 year old girl who stabbed a gang member in the groin in San Diego the other day is not. This is not because balloon boy (or runaway bride case etc.)was a more serious event, but becuase the balloon boy story was covered in depth by US and international media with much of the coverage occuring weeks after the event, where as the stabbing received a quarter of a a column on page 2 of the local news section of the San Diego newspaper. It is the amount and quality of coverage that makes an event notable, not the inherent characteristics of the event itself. That is what this guideline tries to make clear. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a significant participant in the discussion and I was not involved in the Balloon Boy incident. Nor am I a deletionist or inclusionist. I just would like a reasonable guideline that can be followed.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was an inclusionist for Balloon Boy - but this guideline arose (or was reborn) out of the complications that entailed from that AfD, not from just the deletionist perspective. I fully support this guideline - while encouraging ongoing improvement as discussed above (and below) of course. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who started this proposal after the Colorado balloon incident. I voted to delete that one, but under this guideline that article still qualifies for inclusion. My reason for starting this proposal was not to create a deletionist guideline on events, but that I realized that there really was no guidance on this issue, with lots of editors trying to shoehorn policies and guidelines that don't quite fit and quite often conflict with each other. Again, according to this guideline the article would still be kept, and I think that is the correct decision. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Late January wrap-up?

Consider wrapping up the discussion. We should be mindful of the unspoken consensus, the thousands of Wikipedia editors, who edit the AFDs but don't come here. By having a guideline that most people follow, success is more likely. This is better than adopting a guideline that has a consensus of 3-6 people on this page but not too much support in the general community.

Proposed change in italics (italics won't be in the final version but is here to make it easier to see

In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event meeting the first (WP:EFFECT - "Lasting effects") is deemed notable or meeting at least three of the four of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article:

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather roll EFFECT and PERSISTENCE together into LASTING, and require all of the criteria to be met, but I can live with this. The summaries should also be changed to clarify that meeting no one criteria alone provides notability. Fences&Windows 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, tweaking the 1 short of the criteria is ok for now. Will consider rolling the other two soon. It is 3 weeks since the last post and later than late January (allowing discussion and not rushing). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sentence needing cleanup

"In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event meeting the first (WP:EFFECT - "Lasting effects") is deemed notable or meeting all of the rest of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article"

Can someone explain what this is saying? :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits

I've made a number of edits to try and tighten this up and fix contradictions.

Geographic scope

• Geographical coverage now reads "Events that have a demonstrable long term impact on a significant region of the world...", rather than "the region" (what kind of "region"? which one?) and "city elections" (every election for every local town in the world is "presumed notable"?).
• Simplify the description of networks with multiple outlets and move description of "scope of coverage" to a more apprpriate section.

Diversity of sources

• A fair bit of cleanup and simplification.
• Now includes "diversity of sources" material that was in "geographical coverage".

Reorder sections

• Collating "criteria about the event" and "criteria about the coverage" into separate sections, for ease of reading.

Diff: [14]

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think something needs to be in there to make clear that events whose significance and coverage is local, but about which high-quality sources exist (pretty much every city or state election falls into this category, among others) warrant articles. Your language about "significant region of the world" I think reverses the intent of the original, where "the region" referenced the "local area" discussed in the paragraph above. Now, while your language is "by contrast", you are not setting up a contrast - the point being made is just local is bad and national or international is good. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with this as written. The point is there are very few subjects where we say "if it meets X criteria it will have an article" (automatic notability). In most cases certain criteria make it more or less likely, are preferred or expected, or may make it unlikely or unsuitable. So an expectation that you describe which basically suggests "local-only events with high quality sources warrant articles" is way, way too broad. Most local events do not.

What I've worded reflects a good statement of the norm. If an event only gains localized reporting it may not necessarily be notable; events gaining national/international coverage are more likely to be notable but not guaranteed; events having a widespread long term and not merely local impact in the world are probably going to be notable. Notice none of these say the event will or won't, rather they describe the likelihood as a result of how much impact (scale, scope, nature, endurability, etc) it had.The interpretation you've drawn is not what it's saying. Hopefully this clarifies a bit? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FT2's ideas are closer to the arguments at AFDs. Some editors here wanted to tighten the rules with a "bright line". Cross the bright line and it is automatic. There is no easy answer.

Is there a compromise? Have a bright line saying if nearly all criteria are strongly (not weakly) met, the article is automatically deemed notable. If not, it may? Or should we be entirely neutral and non-judgemental in that we strictly define what is notable and strictly apply the criteria? (make it so there are fewer AFD arguments - we could even define the number of reliable sources needed). Having a strict criteria reduces opinions but strict rules are usually frowned upon in Wikipedia.

Or should we have a descenting view, like in some multi-judge courts? The guideline is --- (strict criteria), but there is sufficient support that ---- may be applicable. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed clarification

The actual guidance is very vague. It doesn't really give actual guidance on how to evaluate notability and it's unclear (see above). Proposed rewrite of 2nd half making the section as follows:

== Inclusion criteria == Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Events are also very likely to be notable if they are have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, and viral phenomenon) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable for encyclopedic purposes unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine. These factors are described below.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The "for encyclopedic purposes" is superfluous; all uses of notable on the page mean it in its Wikipedia jargon context. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The target for that clause is the kind of situation you get at AFD for a crime such as murder where someone argues "It got loads of mentions, it was a big deal event and it would be an insult not to have an article". It's useful to distinguish that it may be notable in the public eye but not for encycolopedic purposes, as a way to soften the likely decision to delete. From our perspective it's understood, but to a reader expecting us to keep an article I think it's wording that can help. Not a big deal either way but that's the rationale. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than agreeing that "for encyclopedic purposes" is redundant, this clarification seems OK to me. Fences&Windows 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Railway incidents guideline

A guideline was been written for railway incidents, but its status as an approved guideline is disputed. See Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents) Fences&Windows 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this meant to OVERRIDE the general notability guideline?

Apparently I missed a good time to say no, but now that this is a guideline, we need clear consensus on one main point: whether this guideline is intended to override WP:GNG (here called the "primary" notability guideline). I would assume the opposite from a guideline that starts out saying that it is meant to explicate WP:GNG.

If WP:GNG is dominant, that means, you can't impose any extra burden on an article with this guideline. You can't require more sources than it does, or different kinds of sources, or a different time frame, or a different geographical distribution, etc. And that's how I think it should be, because editors shouldn't be bothered with figuring out which articles Notability (Muppets) commands to be deleted from one week to the next.

But if not, then that is an issue that needs to be discussed at WP:GNG and which should require consensus for the change there. Wnt (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that, quite apart from the general notability guideline, articles can be deleted as "not encyclopedic content" (see WP:DEL#REASONS, that "not encyclopedic content" is defined at WP:NOT, and that WP:NOTNEWS incorporates the provisions of WP:EVENT. So that it's possible for an article to meet WP:GNG and still be deleted per WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about WP:NOTNEWS, but whenever that policy is brought up it is almost invariably in error. How can that policy, which hasn't changed, mandate the provisions of this guideline that was created a few months ago? It says "considers notability", linking WP:GNG; it has a "who's who" provision quoting BLP, but I don't think it includes WP:EVENT in any way. Wnt (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, Notability (events) seems more like a "best practices" document. If there's a question whether an event is notable, this go-to page lists factors that should be considered, and the choice of factors was given quite some thought by several people. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This guideline is intended to guide editors in interpreting the various preexisting guidelines and policies that apply to articles about events. WP:NOTNEWS was already used to delete articles and WP:GNG was already cited to keep them. WP:EVENT was needed as they are apparently contradictory. This guideline distils the principles already used at AfD and in existing policies and guidelines into a single guide for articles about events. Fences&Windows 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Such misinterpretation of NOTNEWS was always controversial, at least whenever I commented on one. If the policy is unclear as written it needs to be clarified, not to be muddled with an extra guideline. Wnt (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All notability guidelines are meant to guide people as to what the general consensus. None are intended to mandate keep/delete votes. Thus, this guideline is no different than any other - it will generally be useful, but can be ignored whenever the need arises. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Annual Events

I recently proposed Snowzilla, a big snowman built every year, for deletion. The result was no consensus. The central issue seemed to be whether or not the news coverage was sustained. I maintained that it was not. Although there has been coverage every year, I felt like it was temporary, unsustained coverage each time. Others disagreed, saying that coverage over a period of years counts as sustained coverage. Any thoughts that anyone else has? Does it make sense to include something on this "Events" page addressing the notability of annual events? Dunncon13 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

An annual event that attracts coverage annually would qualify as ongoing coverage. There is no need for a continuous stream of coverage. What would you consider to be the appropriate time interval between reports that would constitute "ongoing"? -- Whpq (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For one-time events, the guideline is pretty clear: " . . . a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." For an annual event, if the only coverage is a burst at the time of the event every year, that suggests lack of notability to me. I don't know that I can define an appropriate time interval any more rigorously than that. It is just a judgment call - annual coverage burst, or ongoing? In cases where it's really not clear which kind of coverage there is, you could look at other sections of the guideline. Are there lasting effects of the annual event? Is there significant depth of coverage each year, or in any one year? Is the coverage routine? Is it a run-or-the-mill annual event, or is there something more substantial to it? The bigger question, though, is whether the guideline should explicitly discuss annual events - maybe answering the question of how to determine the difference between annual bursts of news coverage and sustained, ongoing coverage. Dunncon13 (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?

Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is currently a notability guideline that touches upon the notability of 1) criminal acts [i.e. events] and 2) people who are either the victim or a perpetrator of a criminal act. As an option to help alleviate a bit of redundancy within the growing number of notability guidelines, I am wondering if there is any support or opposition to merging the first section of that guideline with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and the second part to an appropriate subsection within Wikipedia:Notability (people). Location (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• In order to centralize the discussion, I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Please comment there. Location (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

biographies of living people associated with a single event

I tweaked the guideline recently and it was reverted in good faith. I think there is agreement that what I added represents good community practice, just that it isn't necessary to spell it out. I wanted to get some feedback if we should add it anyway.

Basically, we have a policy of removing biographies of living persons who are only notable for a single event. But sometimes people resurrect this content and try to build it into an event article. Admittedly, some events are notable, and all the people involved become notable. But some events are just news, and Wikipedia shouldn't open itself to legal issues, privacy issues, and quality issues of cramming everyone's 15 minutes of fame into an article.

Just curious what everyone's thoughts are on this. Should we mention something here that discourages people from turning a biography-BLP1E-article into an event-1EBLP-article? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should encourage people to create articles that meet the notability guidelines and discourage people from creating articles that do not meet the notabilty guidelines. I think WP:EVENT and WP:BIO (including WP:BLP1E) are generally pretty clear about what types of articles people should and should not create. I'm not sure the addition you prosposed would really help anything. It included a reference to WP:GAME which in and of itself could be construed by others as an assumption of bad faith, particularly by those who think WP:BLP1E has been tossed around a little too frequently to eliminate articles that otherwise should exist. Location (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on WP:AFD, WP:EVENT, and the notability of some aircrashes

Does exactly what it says on the tin. See Wikipedia:Notability (fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents) for details. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC on WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT

Hi

I have started a RfC on WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT.

Codf1977 (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

time traveller

A issue has arrisen (again) about the notability of the circus(film) time traveller story. The basic gist is that vIt was considerd notable a tthe time so its still notable Vs It has had no lasting impact so its a one off event. Opinion please. I will cross post this with notability as its equaly applicableSlatersteven (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can this triple negative be untwisted?

“ This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. ”

Before I or others offer a replacement, does the current wording have defenders? patsw (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although I expect to be in a minority. The current wording describes exactly what the guideline is trying to say - and, just as important, what it isn't trying to say. I can't think of an alternative that does this without using three negatives, not that that means much. Maybe an improvement would be:

“ This does not, however, mean that recent events with no proof of lasting effect are automatically non-notable. ”

But that's a pretty limited change. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fun! How's this?

“ This does not, however, mean recent events should be discounted. They may be notable even without proof of lasting effect. ”

Routine

Does this mean 2012 Summer Olympics should be AfD? Isn't there some point at which a regular sporting event becomes non-routine? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Routine would be something that happen day-to-day or week-to-week (eg : individual baseball or American football games). Yearly or less-frequent events that would be subject of larger coverage, like the Olympics or Super Bowl, are not. Where is the line drawn? I don't think anyone can answer that but again, it is likely somewhere between a weekly event and a yearly event. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that this section has become abused lately. What is "routine" coverage anyway? Just a listing of the sports scores? What about details about a game that may well be noteworthy? The WP:ROUTINE argument has come up in AFDs concerning college football games and I think that this section needs to be either further defined or eliminated entirely. For example, I read the "routine" section to apply to college football games to mean that if all you have is a list of scores, you don't have an article. At least one other thinks it means that all coverage of sports and games is simply routine coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• The circular answer is that routine coverage is what newspapers do that Wikipedia does not do because Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• This is confusing because "routine coverage", when applied to a specific topic, such as Obama or the 2012 Olympics, has the meaning "routinely covered".  Such repeated coverage defines a topic as passing WP:GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• There is a related problem in that editors apply the WP:ROUTINE argument to non-events to assert that means that such are not notable.  One thing that would help is to change the shortcut from WP:ROUTINE to something like WP:ROUTINE#EVENT, and then deprecate WP:ROUTINE as a soft redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I realize I'm a little late to this party, but I did notice this thread earlier and forgot to respond. I, too, am bothered by the somewhat vague label of "routine" here and in WP:NOTNEWS. I think we might be better served by either attempting to better define "routine" or possibly even scrapping the term in favor of better wording. Location (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Afd/merge discussions while event is current

It is quite common that when an event has just happened, that someone will jump at the opportunity to create an article on the event. Someone else will do the same and create an article on the main person involved in the event. Then, while news is still breaking, someone will go and open an Afd on the event, saying that Wikipedia is not news, or on the person on the basis of WP:BLP1E. As an example, there is now an article called 2011 Tucson shooting, created on the day of the event. There is also an article now about Jared Lee Loughner. That was proposed for deletion, but the Afd was speedy closed. There is also a merge discussion going on now on that page's talk page.

At the moment, it is not easy to find a true consensus whether the Jared Lee Loughner page should be deleted or merged or not on the basis of BLP1E because the event is too current and the consensus can change from one hour to the next. I think it would be better in these situations to wait until the dust settles before making such decisions. It can be quite disruptive when you have a talk page that is filled with ¾ a discussion whether or not to merge that is a stalemate and just ¼ on how the article should actually be written, which is what talk pages were really intended for. It is on these talk pages where we should be determining, for example, what content belongs or does not if the page were to be merged. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the dust should have settled before starting an article, there is no need to rush to press.  I'm thinking 3-6 months as an artificial minimum before starting an article.  Here are two recent examples.  Wright's law was created while ShmooCon was still in progress, and involved the time of many editors to get it deleted at AfD. United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics hasn't happened yet, but was kept at AfD, on the theory that the best name could be determined at the talk page.  Here an arbitrary rule of not allowing such an article until 3 months after the Olympics would have avoided this unconstructive AfD debate.  As a result, people around the world can come to Wikipedia to get the medal totals for the US at the 2012 games in London: currently at 0 gold, 0 silver, and 0 bronze.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of having a hard and fast rule for time before starting an AFD seems somewhat like a case of WP:TOOMUCHPROCESS. It would suck very much if one had to wait two or three months for an article that's clearly WP:BLP1E...one recent example being a teenager who held a classroom hostage for about six hours before committing suicide. Someone thought to create an article about that when there were no injuries or deaths and very minimal coverage. It can't be speedied or prod'ed (as this guy was more notable than the vanity bios that people create about themselves), so would we honestly wait three months just to delete it?

Granted, most of the time I do think people are both too trigger happy to create articles and to start AFDs; in recent months I have called to keep some articles that I felt were more notable than the run of the mill BLP1E news event. Sometimes the process is disruptive; one example is an admin nominating 2010 Shanghai fire for deletion and then removing the blurb from ITN. I figure that if it's good enough to clear WP:ITN/C it's notable and should never be subject to AFD, but hey that's my opinion. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should restrict creation of articles based on current events, that way we avoid even thinking about AfDs.  Looking at United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics, I don't think it is encyclopedic to be reporting current medal totals for an event more than a year in the future.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Restricting current event articles seems to me like a violation of WP:BOLD. As well, when the event in question is really notable (such as an act of terror), we often get good press coverage for how quickly we create, update an article. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How often is "often"?  I've only heard of one mention and that was by Jimmy, which is not an independent source.  But I agree that we don't want to be overly restrictive.  The point here is to avoid premature AfD debates like Serene Branson, where the news continues to pour out.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for "Under construction"

The purpose of this proposal is to discourage, but not prevent; both articles that lack the perspective of history, and premature AfD discussions.

Suppose that we had a page called WP:Under construction.

1. Any admin, seeing a new article based on events too new to be judged by history, could under current WP:BOLD policy redirect such an article to the WP:Under construction page,
2. protect the page with a specified time limit (other discussions suggest that the default might be two weeks to allow weekly news magazines to weigh in),
3. create a Sandbox page allowing article development to continue, and
4. make a procedural speedy close of any AfD discussion.
5. Any other admin could revert the redirect, at which point the article is returned to the normal policies.
   Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow (essay)
• Wikipedia:There is no deadline (an essay referenced by the policy WP:Editing policy)
• Wikipedia:Recentism (essay)

Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Deletion_policy#incubation and WP:Article_incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "Any other admin could revert the redirect," would make this unworkable. There would need to be some type of consensus to move back to prevent the almost guaranteed removal of every article making the whole process moot. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Lasting effects

According to this diff, the "Lasting effects" section was changed to include a statement that events with lasting effects are granted "automatic inclusion" per the assertion that consensus for the change was reached in this discussion. It appears as though only two editors were involved in that part of the discussion and that there was not consensus between them. I suspect this is something that slipped by in what has become a very lengthy guideline. Given that there are very few things in Wikipedia that have automatic or de facto notability, I have made a change that keeps the reference to "historical significance", but removed the one to "automatic inclusion". Location (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RAPID contradicts policy

The advice in the WP:RAPID section seems to contradict other direction in this page and in other policies such as WP:EFFECT WP:CRYSTAL and even half of even the essay "there is no deadline" which it seems to base much of its reasoning on. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal on how to deal with this? In practice, neither the advice to delay creation nor the advice to delay deletion nomination is followed (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy). This suggests that these parts of the guideline do not truly have consensus or are simply ignored. The contradictory nature also makes reference to them useless in Afds. In my opinion, we should strike the advice on both and move the redirect of WP:RAPID to Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Location (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not have any proposal, but I think your suggestion has possibilities. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on how breaking news events should be handled? I'm wondering if there is a different standard of notability for those articles. It seems that many editors either ignore WP:PERSISTENCE or assume that the standard is met in terms of hours or days rather than months or years. Location (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitting everyone with a cluebat till they realize that breaking news should be handled by Wikinews? :-) The major issue with wikipedia's open sourcing philosophy is the inability to appropriately deal with teh latest newz as it is flashing and everyone thinks they are helping by adding the most recent tidbit. Over time the hype tends to get worked out, but mass obsession with "up to the second" content updates is probably a cultural issue beyond Wikipedia's ability to change without fundamentally changing Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As its nearly impossible to stop creation, I would rather instead propose that current event articles get date-tagged into some maintenance category, that after 7 days, they are reviewed and if it is clear that there is no long-term notability, they can be PROD/AFD. (Patent nonsense or other immediate problems can be CSD'd). Borderline cases should be kept, but this is not any indication that they cannot be challenged by someone else at AFD. This balances timeliness of article creation on breaking stories (something we can be good at) while trimming stories that are just plain news events. We should still be encouring breaking news to WIkinews but that's more a sea change to get people to go there. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me. I'm not sure how to go about creating a maintenance category. Would it help to have Category:AfD debates (Events) or Category:AfD debates (Breaking news) within Category:AfD debates? The events that seem to be affected mostly by this guideline are those of the "breaking news" variety, so I'm wondering if that should be addressed earlier in the article. Location (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit)I just noticed that this seems similar to Unscintillating's proposal above for WP:Under construction. Location (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What about something where are "breaking news" article becomes a page with a notice "For information on this breaking news story, see [LINK TO WIKINEWS ARTICLE]. To help work on a potential encyclopedia article about this topic [LINK TO DRAFT ARTICLE IN INCUBATOR]". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes.  To get the article out of mainspace we already have a pattern from speedy delete that could be used to create a speedy incubate.  One editor nominates an article for speedy incubation and one admin can move the article.  Most such cases should have a specific date set for when the article is to be returned to mainspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The only problem here is that a lot of people create articles in mainspace and then nominate at In the News. Incubation for an ITN item is not recommended. If there's no ITN pending, sure, but if if there is one, it sorta has to stay in mainspace until sufficient time has passed to take it out of the news spotlight and no longer an ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"In the News" by definition does not violate WP:NOT's principle that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Maybe if you provide an example of the concern it would be more clear.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not ITN that is a problem - that's a good section - but its the fact that people want to create articles as to be able to get them up at ITN (which was the case in the 2012 Empire State Building shooting. A topic that is appropriate for ITN may not be appropriate for a separate article but more that likely will be created as a separate article to start with. At that point, incubation would be a bad idea. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As you know, the nomination for 2012 Empire State Building shooting is in the process of being rejected at ITN, so it seems that articles like this would be good candidates to go into speedy incubate. If an article that goes into the incubator is successfully nominated at ITN, I imagine that would be a reason to pull it out of the incubator. Location (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Empire State Building shooting is a perfect example of what we need to fix. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is anything here that we can do to prevent the creation of these articles. While I don't think that is or has the potential to be a notable event, I think it would be unwise to put that up at Afd until the spike goes away in 24 to 48 hours. In fact, I think it's harder to get rid of articles about non-notable events if they are nominated too soon. Location (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that 2012 Empire State Building shooting is an example of what we need to fix.  Back to the speedy incubate concept, this example seems to work well as a speedy incubate target.  Article is moved to the incubator with return to mainspace scheduled eight days after the news event.  Article can be developed, and the people putting in time are doing so knowing that it is possible that the article will be AfD nominated the instant that it returns to mainspace.  If there is an AfD, the AfD will be much better informed than our current news-event AfDs, and it will be started on an article that is more than 24-hours old.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a better example: 2012 Chinese bus-tanker crash (36 ppl died in a traffic accident) It's presently at ITN, and likely going to be posted. But in terms of long-term notability? Heck no, but the problem is, while it is at ITN, we can't incubate it. We need a process that works in situ, like the idea above that in 7 days from creation we'd check this again to see if it remains notable (doubtful). --MASEM (t) 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never before looked at ITN.  The discussion about Neil Armstrong was revealing.  I suspect that the problem starts with the name, "In The News", when what they mean is "Updated Wikipedia articles with recent-news content", which would indeed be an interesting concept.  Instead we get a rush to press with Neil Armstrong, even though there are only two sentences to read.  And we also get the tendency to write non-notable articles just because the topic is "In The News".  Maybe they need some new participants with a policy-based orientation.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the issue with the incubator, I see no purpose to keeping an article in the incubator if ITN wants it.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

i think it is a bad call to not address faults with the current notability process or to design a process just so that ITN wont have to modify its procedures. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What I think is that incubation is the wrong idea, but some type of "you have X days to prove this is really a notable event" countdown is appropriate. Having the news page in main space, even if we collectively feel it doesn't below, may attract editors with additional information (particularly if its not from the US or Europe) that gives significant context. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That really seems to fly in the face of WP:N "Notability is not temporary" - it would seems to through that away saying "well its notable for 7 days, but then maybe not after that." This issue needs to be addressed in a way that these "hot newsy" items have the onus on the creators to show a likely meeting of WP:N BEFORE it gets established in live article encyclopedia space.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Anything that attempts to limit article creation is doomed to fail simply because editors are likely not going to be aware of these guidelines/policies/requirements once they can make an article. We can encourage it as much as possible, but its not going to stop new and well as experienced editors from rapid article creation. Thus we do really need to consider the post-main space creation actions like the 7-day review when people don't start with incubation. The two solutions should work in tandem, but you can't just propose incubation and expect it to work for all. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of practicality, I think that tagging breaking news articles and revisiting them in 7 to 14 days would be much easier than moving them in and out of the incubator; however, I have concerns that explicitly defaulting to WP:RAPID means that non-notable articles are given temporary notable status. As The Red Pen of Doom has suggested, this could be problematic for those who would argue WP:NTEMP. How would the guideline's text address this? Location (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as this process is well spelled out to explain that we're NOTNEWS, but also don't want to stymie possibly good article development on current events (which we have been praised for before), I think most would understand keeping an article in WP for 7-14 days is not granting it any special notability status. Just because we have an article on WP does not mean we consider it notable - due to how notability is determined it would have to undergo a review by consensus to make that assessment; mere article existence is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than create a new template, would it not be better to use the various current event templates and implement a procedure to follow-up on them as they expire? I'm not sure how the protocol works for these templates in that both the Shaanxi bus–tanker crash and the 2012 Empire State Building shooting occurred within the week but neither is tagged. Location (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the CURRENT EVENTS tags removed very quickly, it seems that it is rarely in usage after the first wave of breaking news / 24 hours. I dont know if there was ever a consensus about the times or if it is the "tags are ugly -get em off ASAP" crowd or what. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BREAKING and WP:RAPID seem to hinge on the issues of lasting effects and persistent coverage. It seems as though half of Wikipedia editors think that an article about an event should not be created until it demonstrates enduring notability through WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, and the other half think that an article about an event can be created and kept until it can be proven that it will not meet WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. Q: Is there any evidence to show that the recommendations WP:BREAKING and/or WP:RAPID actually have consensus among editors? Location (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

An articles existence depending upon what wikipedia editors think will happen seems to run in the face of WP:V and WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL other policies that requires that such decisions are made upon third party reliable sources making such claims/providing such evidence. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

NEVENT was brought to guideline status via an RFC. So it should reasonably have global consensus. The problem is that all this guideline can do is recommend against rapid article creation on current events until notability is shown and very hard to actually enforce without being overtly aggressive. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The text WP:EVENT has consensus among editors who drafted it and were involved in the RFC (which includes myself), however, the implementation of WP:BREAKING and WP:RAPID (and even WP:PERSISTENCE) in practice do not appear to have consensus. The discussion above (i.e. keep breaking news articles in mainspace vs. get them out of mainspace) seems to support that there is no consensus on how to handle these. Just trying to figure out what we can do to resolve the contradiction tag. Do we re-write particular sections (with or without a change in our procedures for handling breaking news articles) or remove them altogether? Location (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

do we hold an RfC to begin to establish a consensus for how the community thinks we should be handling breaking news? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some ideas for the wording of an RfC? I think this guideline generally works, however, it would be nice to get a bit more feedback to help us smooth out the issues related to breaking news and WP:PERSISTENCE. Location (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Background

I have changed the "Background" section from:

Deletion discussions have featured a number of contentious debates about events, particularly breaking news events, that have received intense media coverage. Several policies and guidelines within Wikipedia stand out as being frequently cited in these debates.

• "Keep" recommendations often cite the breadth of coverage as satisfying the general notability guideline which states that "a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
• "Delete" recommendations often cite "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material" and criteria for people who came to attention due to their role in a single event. (See Biographical articles policy and Biographical notability)
• Another commonly cited rule is that notability is not temporary.

By attempting to clarify the application of these rules to articles about events, this guideline reflects the community consensus on how future similarly situated articles should be handled.

to:

Article deletion discussions have featured a number of contentious debates about events, particularly breaking news events, that have received intense media coverage. This guideline was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG (i.e. "a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material). By attempting to clarify the application of these rules to articles about events, this guideline reflects the community consensus regarding the handling of similarly situated articles.

I hope this isn't too troubling to others as I think it better explains the impetus for WP:EVENT, and references early in the guideline the frequent conflict between the GNG and WP:NOT#NEWS. As background information, I don't think the biographical references and NTEMP are needed in this section of the article. I imagine the "community consensus" statement could be dropped as it is already mentioned in the lede. Location (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Criminal acts

Following a recent AFD debate and other concerns with "murder of" articles, I want to float the idea of establishing some clear guidelines on the issue of articles concerning murder and other criminal acts. Far too many "murder of" articles seem to appear here within a relatively short time of the event's occurrence, and the majority end up in the AFD pile where there is an endless debate about their notability. To this end, I've put together an essay on the subject based on current policy and comments made at the AFD, and would really appreciate some feedback. Please feel free to make any suggestions and/or changes to it you feel are appropriate. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Degree of Lasting Effect

Hey, so i'm attempting to write some notability guidelines for mixed martial arts events (UFC being the best known current promotion). essentially i'm attempting to take all the policy/guidelines in place and boil them down to what's relevant specifically to a MMA event article. i had the guidelines to a point where there was near unanimous approval, but the most recent change has 'gone too far' in some peoples eyes. the current guidelines are here, and the most current version of my proposed guidelines is here. essentially those who wish to have individual event articles feel the burden of proof/degree of lasting effect is too great. 1) I have two questions for you folks. has there been discussion on what constitutes the minimum for lasting effect? i can elaborate with examples if needed, but as i read it, the example given "the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects." does not seem to be the bar every article must meet, rather it is a very good example of lasting effect. 2) would it be appropriate to literally have a section in an article "==Lasting Effect=="? i can not find other examples of this, so i'm kind of assuming i'm missing a guideline or suggestion against it. if this would be appropriate for a MMA article it would certainly make it easier to direct editors to giving more attention to this portion of notability. Kevlar (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't language here too vague?

Hi. Following a discussion on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER , see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOTNEWS_somewhat_deprecated, I'd like to know if everybody is happy with the wording of the current NEVENT guideline. What concerns me is that a lot of the guideline is very vague and open to conflicting interpretations. See for example "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." - people may (and do) often have different interpretations of what "significant","impact", "wide", "region" or "widespread societal group" means. There is no shared common sense, except for the extremes, and we shouldn't rely on nebulous and vague subjective wording, IMHO, to determine something as crucial as inclusion guidelines. Whatever it is the consensual inclusion bar, I'd like to have it written down in the most unambiguous way possible, to avoid bitter arguments at AFD and make it clearer, on both sides of the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, what is the consensual line in the sand. What do you think? Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I, too, think there is a lot of room for improvement in the wording of the article. I would have to take a look at the various edit histories in the article and talk page, but I believe the initial drafts or discussions for that section referred to the differences between local, national, and international coverage of an event rather than the extent of the event's impact. I believe the first can be delineated much more objectively than the second. I imagine this could form a basis for tweaks in WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. Location (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Some questions

Hi! I wanted to create an article about a bombing incident (it happened on July 26, 2013 11:00 PM to 12:00 AM GMT8+) that had caused 6 fatalities and 30 more injuries in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. Is it an article worthy incident? I wanted to make it sure first that the article is an article-worthy. Also, if ever that if is not really not an article worthy incident, can I an article that provide lists of the bombing incidents in the Philippines? I wanted to create it like this List of earthquakes in the Philippines, so I think the list should have the following criteria in order for an event to be listed: has fatalities, many people were injured/ caused great damage/ an incident that is of national interests (this needs to be defined and be specific)/ or something significant. Comments?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If there was only the burst of coverage in the news at the time of the event, and no likely impact to the larger world, then it isn't appropriate for an article, per this guideline (though you are welcome to write an article at Wikinews which does accept any current event). A list type article that summarizes this, akin to the earthquake, would be reasonable, though the only issue I see if the # of bombings in the Philippines is very small and if it might makes sense to have a larger article in the region. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! :D Hmmm. If not an article listing for the Philippines, then a listing for Southeast Asia maybe okay. Thanks again! :D--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 20:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTROUTINE

There has been, in my opinion, severe abuses of the "routine" guideline. Specifically, some editors are applying the "routine coverage" broadly to all sports-related articles in the media (such as this example and this example). It seems that some editors are interpreting WP:ROUTINE to apply to any article about sports. In one AFD, an editor stated that a 500-700 word source artricle isn't big enough to be considered anything but "routine" and should therefore not be considered to establish notability.

I put together a brief response essay at WP:NOTROUTINE and added it to the section on [{WP:ROUTINE]] as a response. It was removed with the note that it should be discussed first. Let that discussion begin here with my statement that I believe that the ROUTINE guideline is too broad and ill-defined. It can be useful, but it can also (in its present state) be abused.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still finding a lot of misunderstadings and possibly even abuses of WP:ROUTINE in AFDs. We clearly needs some clarification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple things to consider; first, a source may be routine for one topic, but not routine for another, just like a source can be primary for one, secondary for another. In relation to that, routine sourcing is nearly always primary - a recap of the events without deep analysis (eg, a stock market report will say the stocks closed up by X points or (yy%) difference. The calculation of that percentage is NOT deep analysis that we'd expect). Eg, this would have clearly shown the Hakel article from the Baltimore Sun to be not routine since it seems a short bio. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Differentiation from news

This defines newsworthiness as being determined by "impact, timeliness, prominence, proximity, bizarreness, conflict, and currency". This is not an unusual list (although I think that 'bizarreness' is usually given as 'rarity').

I was thinking about the difference between this list and encyclopedic notability, which is really only concerned with two of the items: long-term impact and prominence. Timeliness, proximity, and currency are the opposite of encyclopedic values, since they are time-bound and audience-specific. I think it would be a good idea to introduce something like this into the background section of this guideline:

The seven pillars of newsworthiness are impact, timeliness, prominence, proximity, bizarreness, conflict, and currency. Encyclopedic notability is far more limited, as it is limited to long-term, widespread reader interests. What makes an event have encyclopedic value is its impact and prominence over a span of years. Events that are likely to be of interest only to people nearby or only for a relatively short time period, such as motor vehicle collisions or the deaths of most individuals, are newsworthy, but not encyclopedic.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. In some respects at least, encyclopedic notability is less limited than newsworthiness. We do not, for example, require timeliness. James500 (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I am not satisfied with "impact and prominence over a span of years" either. "Span of years" literally means two years. That seems arbitrary. Why not six months, twelve months, eighteen months, five years or any other duration? I was under the impression that news coverage typically takes place within hours or days of an event. James500 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Event"

Some clarification of the expression "event" may be needed. I occasionally see this guideline invoked against things that are not events, such as documents and literary works that probably fall under NBOOKS, other creative works, and abstract concepts that are known to have been invented on a particular occasion. James500 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Beauty pageants

Hi - I have launched a discussion over on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants which also addresses the question of how to determine notability of the pageants. Please feel free to comment over there as it would be useful to establish some solid rules of thumb to use/link for clarifying how to gauge the significance of such events particularly in relation to whether winners/contestants are notable by association. Mabalu (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Would be great to get an expert's opinion on 2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this article (2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters). Anyone who is an expert on notability criteria would be helpful if they could add in their thoughts.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in the breaking news guidelines

The sub-sections entitled "Don't rush to create articles" and "Don't rush to delete article" were borrowed from the essay Wikipedia:There is no deadline during the initial formation of this guideline (see diff). A brief early discussion about it can be found here.

As TheRedPenOfDoom pointed out in a 2012 discussion, the advice of these sub-sections is contradictory. I think this contradictory advice is problematic in Afds for breaking news events for four reasons: 1) each sub-section has equal validity thus they cancel each other out and make this part of the guideline meaningless, 2) the sub-sections do not address the purpose of this guideline (i.e. the notability of an event), 3) the sub-sections undermine and weaken the five main points of the guideline that do address the notability of an event, and 4) those editors who do not heed the advice in the sub-sections seem to have the upper hand on whether breaking news articles are created or deleted. This points to why Wikipedia:There is no deadline is itself an essay and not a guideline.

I am wondering if there are any thoughts on removing those two sub-sections and redirecting WP:RAPID and WP:ANTICIPATION to Wikipedia:There is no deadline. An alternative would be to briefly summarize the contradiction and instruct editors to see the essay and WP:EVENTOUTCOMES. - Location (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on WP:ROUTINE

I believe that the guideline WP:ROUTINE is being grossly misinterpreted at about 17 AFDs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football. I have an essay at WP:NOTROUTINE that helps cover the details. Essentially, WP:ROUTINE as it pertains to sports states that "sports scores" are what constitute routine coverage. The discussion at these AFDs seems to hold that "feature articles" constitute routine coverage (which should be more than enough to pass any notability muster anyplace else). Please advise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that Paul is the one who is "grossly misinterpreting" WP:ROUTINE by focusing solely on a single example, "sports scores," and treating it as a limitation rather than a single example of "routine coverage." In full, WP:ROUTINE reads as follows:

Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories).

When viewed in context, it is clear that "sports scores" is merely an example, and is not intended as a limitation on the scope and meaning of "routine coverage," as Paul asserts, and completely ignores the third sentence of WP:ROUTINE, which states that "Routine events such as sports matches . . . may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Paul's narrow interpretation also ignored the relevant language of WP:Run-of-the-mill, which is linked in the middle of WP:ROUTINE:

As for professional sport, each game will receive in-depth coverage from the local papers of the team's city, and at the very least, a box score from papers elsewhere. Each professional sports league has plenty of teams (some have more than 30), and a sports season has many games (Major League Baseball has 162 per season). It is not practical to have an article on every game ever played. Imagine an article on "July 8 Cardinals vs. Brewers game" and "July 9 Cardinals vs. Brewers game" and "July 11 Cardinals vs. Cubs game" and so on. More encyclopedic would be articles like 2009 St. Louis Cardinals season, which describe the highlights of the season.

Other notability and suitability guidelines also make references to "routine sports events," "routine sports coverage," etc., and it is crystal clear that their understanding of "routine" coverage in sports is not as crabbed as Paul's. I could enumerate in detail the provisions of other guidelines (see, e.g., WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:GNG) that have an impact on the proper interpretation of "routine," but suffice to say they are already listed and discussed in each of the 17 AfDs that Paul referenced above. Everyone is welcome to express their opinion in these individual AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was actually asking for their opinion. But since you brought it up, I really would like clarification on the line in ROUTINE that states "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." Emphasis was added by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Too late, they've been deleted. Is anyoen monitoring this page? It would have been nice to get an impartial interpretation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Local Elections

Are local elections notable? It has been my understanding that with some common sense exceptions (big cities or national news coverage for some reason etc.) they usually are not. To what extent does GNG trump EVENTCRIT here? Even fairly small town or county level elections are likely to garner a certain amount of news coverage which would effectively mean that most local elections will be notable. And does that potentially run afoul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information?

The prompt for this post can be found in the good faith removal of two Prod tags (1) (2) by Macs15.

CC Dougweller... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability of theatrical performances?

Is there maybe any way to either establish specific guidelines relating explicitly to theatrical performances, either as specific guidelines relating exclusively to them or with an indication in a specific extant guideline that it directly applies to theatrical performances? This question is raised because of the recent nomination for deletion of two articles in a three article group regarding the play She Has a Name, which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (history) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is this a guideline?

No one cares about the criteria this guideline sets out. It doesn't matter how many times I quote them, nor how many times I elucidate what the guideline says. The simple answer, provided by other parties, is "article passes the notability guidelines. Major news event" or "sources indicate notability". These people don't explain HOW the article passes the guidelines, or HOW the "sources indicate notability". They simply do not care about this guideline. If it is going to be ignored like this, why is it a guideline at all? I'm a strong proponent of it, and I think it is well-written. All the criteria make sense, and are easy to understand. However, there is no reason for it to be a guideline if everyone refuses to even acknowledge that it exists. This is a great disease in our encylopaedia, and one that I think we should consider. Either the guideline should be enforced, or it should not be a guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone would reply. We have a significant problem on our hands. A small cabal of editors is preserving articles on non-notable events, and completely ignoring WP:EVENT. They are corrupting the encylopaedia, and nothing is being done to stop them. If this guideline means nothing, please revoke its guideline status. Otherwise, we need to do something to ensure that people actually follow it. RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As currently written, this guideline is much more stringent than the GNG, which enjoys widespread support among editors active in deletion debates and evaluating new articles. I see no need for a separate guideline, since GNG works perfectly well for a category of article as broad as "events". When support for a guideline is weak in practice, that is not a "significant problem", but rather an indication that consensus changes and evolves. I am unconvinced that this particular guideline has ever enjoyed much support. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, you'd ought revoke its guideline status. I'd hate to see it go, but if it isn't going to be "supported", then it should not be a guideline. RGloucester — ☎ 23:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume that the impetus for this discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Carnation murders. I agree with Cullen328 that we do not have a "significant problem on our hands". I find it strange how certain articles survive while others get deleted (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Sartory), but I believe WP:EVENT does have support and recognize that editors place differing amounts of weight to the various criteria. I imagine that you could put up an Rfc and see what happens; maybe more feedback will iron out the guideline. - Location (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not the impetus. It is only one example of many hundreds. We do have a crisis. It is a crisis of identity. If Wikipedia is to be a blog or a tabloid, it needs to say so on the tin. We must either accept the guidelines and apply them, or not accept them and change gears. RGloucester — ☎ 06:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is not more stringent. Most current events fail GNG by shear virtual of at-the-now news reporting being primary sourcing, and thus failing the need for secondary sources. NEVENT is designed to acknowledge that the impact and repercussions of an event - eg the development of secondary sourcing - may take time or even may not even happen for some events, but the events are no doubt notable (for example, nearly every major commercial airline disaster is a good example of such). NEVENT is meant to be how to apply NOTNEWS to the article-level discussions, and just because an event can be documented doesn't mean it needs an encyclopedic article. We have Wikinews for that purpose, with the added benefit that an event that may not be immediately obvious as meeting NEVENT can be moved to WP after it does develop. The larger problem is that we have too many people that want to write about current events using en.wiki for that purpose, which is not what WP's goal is. We need to be reasserting that NOTNEWS is policy, though that NEVENT does tell us at times that some purely news stories will still merit an encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw your comments in the Afd. Would it help to add WP:PRIMARYNEWS here? - Location (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold to change the link in "Depth of coverage" section to point to PRIMARYNEWS rather than just PRIMARY for better explaination of that facet here. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I would concur with the need to include "Depth of coverage" regarding a news event. These days with news agencies (print/radio/tv/web) all owned by the same parent company it is all too common for a story to be copy/pasted into content farms. It is very easy to use existing news and have it die off. If an event is truly notable then you would have the initial reports (AP, Reuters, etc) and then a follow up more in depth coverage where an agency actually sends reporters to the scene to get the real story. Unfortunately that is rarely done these days because of money and that copy/paste-click bait is much easier. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, I wholeheartedly agree and think that this guideline should be much better enforced. The narrow interests of groups of editors are triumphing time and time again at AfD. --_nonsense ferret 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Any parts of this guideline that are more restrictive than WP:N or WP:NOT or any other relevant policy (including parts that advance a restrictive interpretation of those pages) should be demoted, not enforced. They enjoy almost no support from the community. James500 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing trends

I sort of object to the wording of WP:LASTING given that it only considers the first event in a trend, and not an ongoing issue, to be notable. It essentially claims, for example, that the First Crusade should be inherently more notable than the Second Crusade. That can't possibly be right. Shouldn't the Second Crusade be all the more notable given that there was a First Crusade in the first place? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTINHERITED. Setting a trend is a indication of effects; being part of a trend is not (though of course in your example, both are notable because both had lasting effects). VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that a better answer is that a war is not an event. We shouldn't be using a guideline like this to try to pick off those types of articles. James500 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• User:Kendrick7, I heartily concur. "Lasting" is problematic because it implies permanence. "Enduring" or "long-lasting" are more precise, since they lack the implication of permanence. Even worse is the phrase "permanent effect." This is far too, well, permanent. The apt term is presumably "significant.".

• I propose changing "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." to "Events that have a noted and sourced significant effect of historical significance are likely to be notable.
• I propose changing "Lasting" to "Enduring" as section header.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"Wikinews" section

Our sister project Wikinews has very low participation, and Wikinews doesn't accept old stories ever, including events that happened more than four days ago. Perhaps the section needs some update to reflect that. --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC of interest

There is an RfC at WT:NOT relating to a potential policy change that would have wide impact, including on this guideline [15] Coretheapple (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding WP:NCRIME

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Proposing that we add the following text to WP:NCRIME: Serious (felony) crimes are very likely to be notable if they are motivated by ideological commitments or by prejudice against specific groups..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

@E.M.Gregory: I think I need more information on what is driving this. For example, would skinheads or bigots attacking an interracial couple deserve an article? -Location (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict>Only if an attack can be sourced to meet the usual standards at WP:EVENT or WP:GNG, of course. This proposal is driven by the recent spate of AfD discussions started recently by editors who have recently brought a large and rapidly growing number of articles on recent ideologically-motivated attacks such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Minneapolis shooting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Parramatta shooting to AfD, including some, such as (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (2nd nomination)) that closed as keep just 2 months ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack. Obviously in hate/ideology motivated CRIME, as in any topic area, there are articles that ought to be deleted. But most articles brought to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism are not deleted. This past weekend there were 20 articles listed on this page. by contrast, in all of September 2016 there were 5; in Sept. 2015, 7. In July 2017 the page listed 17 articles, while in July 2016: 6, and July 2015: 7. This sudden jump does not appear to correspond with any particular event, such as the spike in Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) (currently at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)). It began this past spring when a small number of editors began to argue with growing frequency that incidents such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Melbourne attack, and old events such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis failed WP:NOTNEWS and should be deleted. The hope here is to calm the waters by noting that ideological motivations including commitment to ideologies promoting violence and hatred of certain groups contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If it is "only if an attack can be sourced to meet the usual standards at WP:EVENT or WP:GNG, of course", why make the change? Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering that, too. I think most arguments for keep or delete in these types of articles are centered around some aspect of the amount of coverage the crime has received rather than the motivation for the crime. FWIW: I think there is a similar issue in WP:PERP that attempts to define notability of a criminal by the subjective standard of what is unusual. -Location (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Location the motive behind this proposal without a doubt drives at making all terror attacks inherently notable. Whether Gregory considered other examples, such as the one you provided, or not is questionable, and, regardless, the current version of this proposal is far too broad to be accepted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Slick and I have disagreed on this point for a couple of months now, for example, I created 2016 Minneapolis shooting, (about an attack on a group of Muslim immigrants wearing traditional clothing), and she started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Minneapolis shooting, and a series of AfDs on similar crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As Location suggests, there are local felonies that happen all the time that are likely tied to ideological aspects (racism would fall under that), but don't get wide coverage. Further, we should wait to make sure that ideological aspects are confirmed as the motivating driver for the felony, which takes time, and thus falls under normal NEVENTS expectations. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Far too little consideration was put into this proposal and it is much too broad for practical use. Furthermore, basing notability on a suspect's ideology is dangerous and Wikipedia should avoid this type of POV pushing in order to preserve what little neutrality is left in this topic area.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not understand the context of this proposal or what problem it could solve. So far as I know, existing policies are meeting every need which anyone has voiced on these matters. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Where there is an ideological motivation, this may lead to additional, broader coverage, which may indirectly lead to notability, but the proposal appears to want to 'bypass' normal criteria since any 'ideologically motivated' crime would be presumed AfD-proof if this passed. Is someone waving a knife in public, which could well be 'terrorist' (or might not) automatically notable? This is an ill thought-out proposal. Why don't we think of a whole list of possible crimes that are "very likely to be notable", (more than X dead? more than XX stolen, involving children or animals?). Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are number of issues with this proposal, making this proposal unworkable and unimplementable in any serious or consistent way.

1. What is serious? That is a subjective standard, and will vary from person to person.
2. What is a felony? That is a very US-centric term. It is not a term used in modern English law for example.
3. What is a crime? That will change from person to person, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Different countries will criminalise different things, where is the meaning for this term taken from, North Korea, Iceland, Japan, Burkina Faso, the UN?
4. What is meant by very likely to be notable? What is the criteria behind this, is there a time period to wait, is there a conviction count, is there media mass hysteria, is there a couple of conspiracy theories down the pub, and a few fringe people on the internet spouting about it? Where is the line drawn? This guideline should not be attempting to re-implement GNG or event already in place. This proposal would likely to fall foul of BLP due to the way it is worded. Likely is a very strong weasel word.
5. What are ideological commitments? That is a vague term with little real meaning, designed to cover as much as possible to attempt to include as much as possible. This could lead to the inclusion of a chip pan fire, if perceived to be ideologically motivated.
6. What is meant by prejudice against specific groups? This is again limitlessly broad, it could easily mean that chanting on football terraces is included. Two opposing sets of fans will have prejudice against each other based on the team they are supporting.

This is a retrograde step. So many questions are raised by this proposal, which make it unworkable, and is frankly trying to delete proof a set class of article/event/incident/happening. The bar for inclusion of articles of this nature should be getting higher. This proposal seeks removal altogether of the bar. This proposal turns Wikiepdia on its head for this class of article. Virtually nothing would be too small for inclusion for this class of articles. It makes opinion, conjecture, and hearsay acceptable. This proposal is far too broad. This would allow everything from chip pan fires, to nasty chanting on football terraces, to Saturday night drunken fights, to potentially have articles. This proposal, and anything even remotely similar to it, should never see the light of day. Sport and politics (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. In peace time ideologically motivated crimes tend to be quite notable. However if they happen on a routine basis (e.g. snipers shooting on the Sarajevo market, or civilian deaths in Aleppo) they tend to be reduce to local news with scant international or national coverage (beyond covering the conflict at large, or particular human interest stories (a child who was captured in a photograph/video, compelling story, etc.). We should be guided by coverage. My view is that if an attack has been covered by enough sources for enough time, and particularly when the coverage is from good sources - it is notable. We could perhaps set more exact criteria for level of coverage required (with some discounting for newer events per RAPID).Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and it looks like this is rapidly heading to WP:SNOW. The proposal is well intentioned and tends to be true. However it tends to be true because such crimes tend to get more news coverage. That makes the proposal redundant at best. If the crime doesn't get significant news coverage, there's no reason we should artificially elevate the notability. Alsee (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose In the state of Oklahoma stealing $500 is a felony, a theft of $500 should not have a wikipedia article, regardless of motivation, I think the existing notability criteria work much better. Also a felony in one state could be a misdemeanor in another. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding WP:RAPID

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WP:RAPID is perhaps the most antithetical policies on Wikipedia. According to RAPID it is best not to rush to create an article:

It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable.

However, in the same breadth, it advices us not to rush to delete articles. Writers completely disregard the first section of the policy but regularly apply a rationale at AfD similar to this: "Per RAPID. Let us wait for more reports before deleting the article". When we allow this "logic" to flourish at AfD, we are encouraging editors to disregard the criteria outlined by WP:EVENTCRIT in favor of their good ol' ace in the hole: "Keep... well because RAPID".

• For that reason I propose we include a disclaimer in RAPID similar to this: RAPID cannot be the basis for keeping an article on a current event. A participant at an article deletion discussion must apply the criteria for inclusion of an event.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Alternative suggestion. I brought up something similar HERE, but received no feedback. Per my discussion with myself, I suggest deleting the subsections titled "Don't rush to create articles" and "Don't rush to delete article" and redirect WP:RAPID and WP:ANTICIPATION to Wikipedia:There is no deadline. -Location (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• If I was an editor at that time I surely would have voiced my support. I am open to other possibilities; RAPID's current form, as you already demonstrated three years ago, contradicts itself and undermines the rest of WP:EVENTCRIT. As an essay (or a redirect to one) it will have less weight at AfD and, in practice, would require participants to consider the rest of the criteria for events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for hijacking your Rfc. Your point that editors should put more effort into considering WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE is spot on. I think having those contradictory statements makes that section completely useless as a guideline because some people rush to create articles and other people rush to delete articles citing whichever essay justifies their actions. Although I'm not sure it is a good idea to open up a third Rfc, I could see an Rfc formatted something like this: "Regarding the subsections 'Don't rush to create articles' and 'Don't rush to delete artices', do you prefer to 1) Keep both subsections, 2) Keep 'Don't rush to create articles' and Delete 'Don't rush to delete articles', 3) Keep 'Don't rush to delete artices' and Delete 'Don't rush to create articles', or 4) Delete both subsections." -Location (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Location no, no, it is quite alright -- I actually prefer your proposal. You said exactly what I was feeling but was too cautious to write. It is impractical to keep a guideline editors only half-follow and hold in higher regard than the rest of the criteria for events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:RAPID is referenced frequently at AfD, and almost exclusively in reference to the "don't rush to delete" part despite its [debatable] self-contradiction. IMO, the need for the "don't rush to delete" as well as deletion [of current events articles] itself is made somewhat obsolete by the draftspace, giving a page time to show lasting significance with lower stakes. I.e. I think most articles about current events should start in draftspace and/or be moved there. An issue with this proposal is that it tackles the conflict here, to some extent, but not the bigger tension over, on one hand, basic policies and guidelines that want secondary sources and lasting significance (for Wikipedia to be a lagging indicator of significance and to report the best possible information/sources), and on the other hand the simple fact that things that people do turn to Wikipedia for information about current events and we often do a pretty good job of dealing with them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW this proposal would make sense as an addition to WP:AADD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Regardless of what we write here, people *will* create an article 18 seconds after the event, and people *will* be reluctant to delete it.
  Alternate Proposal: Draftify. And how about adding that duplicate creations can be merged with the existing draft and CSD G6 speedied as redundant? Alsee (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because the WP:BREAKING news guideline as it now stands is functional. It properly discourages both rapid creation and rapid deletion of articles. But it recognizes the functionality of creating articles on major events as they happen. When an event like the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville or the 2017 Westminster attack happens, a labor supply of editors shows up to build an article and monitor it for NPOV. Reliable sources are easy to locate and, importantly, we supply something that out readers want and expect. WP:BREAKING properly and usefully cautions editors to be wary of RAPID creation of articles on breaking news stories that may not prove to be notable, and to be wary of RAPID rushing of articles on current events to deletion. Certainly, a great deal of editorial time has been squandered arguing about articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Arkema plant explosion, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings, when waiting would have clarified notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Does WP:BREAKING really discourage both rapid creation and rapid deletion of articles? As far as I can tell, articles are rapidly created by people who ignore it and then those articles are rapidly nominated for Afd by other people who ignore it. It's a guideline that favors people who ignore guidelines. -Location (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• It certainly influences me. Before I create an article on a WP:BREAKING news story, I always stop and ask myself whether it is likely to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose RAPID is fine as is. Trout whomever creates insignificant articles (Wikipedia does however actively encourage creating highly notable articles in real-time - e.g. Grenfell Tower fire which was on the main page immediately). If, however, there is an article that seems of no lasting significance (despite copious current coverage) - the best thing to do is WAIT - it is much easier to evaluate at AFD that there is no lasting coverage when we are in the future and looking back at 3-6 months of coverage as opposed to speculating on how coverage may or may not develop. There is absolutely no harm in letting the article sit there, and mop it up at a later date.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I was hoping to see more observations, not the usual regulars who typically apply one side of RAPID to keep news articles. Of course you would oppose; it allows you to ignore the rest of WP:EVENTCRIT!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please WP:AGF and refrain from making personal attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• What personal attack E.M.Gregory? Hope for broader participation? Is that really what is passing as a personal attack these days?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This is the first time I have read WP:BREAKING and I find myself in agreement with the OP. We have a guideline that actively and somewhat proudly contradicts itself. I support removing both these subsections and redirecting them to Wikipedia:There is no deadline per user:location above. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose RAPID is fine as is BUT if we modify it I suggest to delete section "Don't rush to create articles" per WP:PAPER and WP:ITN/C as it actually encourage to create articles about a current events--Shrike (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted ජපස edit

I reverted ජපස edit because clearly the intention of this guideline is primarily for events, as its title tell us, and because ජපස, jps (talk), edited this guideline to apparently fit his/her/their argument in an article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Buell), something which I think is problematic. Thinker78 (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Edited 19:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think it is problematic? The WP:WIKILAWYERing you were doing is problematic, but this guideline has been used like this for years and years. (Look at the back links if you don't believe me.) As policy/guidelines are descriptive rather than proscriptive, it's a good idea to let people know that this is how it used so they don't make the same mistake you did. jps (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You are welcomed to post your suggestion for the guideline change you proposed in this talk page and request comment if necessary. Thinker78 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a non-answer. The suggestion is already seen and proposed in the history. As you are the only editor with a stated objection, make ths objection clear here. jps (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The removed text is actually completely fine to include, as often editors may be inclined to make events related to BLP (for example, in the recent months, a number of articles on sexual misconduct allegations to noted individuals. Those should be treated as events for notability, with the careful application of BLP for appropriateness.) --Masem (t) 19:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Masem:What about its application to determine notability of a person as in the case mentioned earlier of Buell? Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Directly applying NEVENTS to Buell's article is probably not right, but I stress that BLP facets that are described in this edit also still apply to the notability of individuals. So it's still perfectly sound advice. --Masem (t) 19:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's kinda WP:COMMON sense, is it not? If events cannot be notable due to sensationalism, then neither should anything else. The point is not that anyone is evaluating whether someone is notable per "events notability". The point is that WP:SENSATIONALISM redirects here, and there is no reason to constantly reinvent the wheel. jps (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You may have a point to a certain extent, but I don't agree with you that was the case with Buell's sources, at least not all sources. I say 'certain extent' because if magazines cover the story of Oprah eating at a restaurant, that may be sensationalist, and that event—Oprah eating at a restaurant—should probably not be included in Wikipedia, but the article can be used to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, because the magazine will not feature an article of John Doe eating at a restaurant, so such article could help prove that Oprah is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh? If you want to make a point, you need to compare borderline notability cases. Sensationalism happens for a variety of reasons, to be sure, but your example makes no sense because no one would use such a magazine article to argue that Oprah is notable. jps (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I would. Context matters though. Thinker78 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You really ought not to because if the only source you had was that magazine article (or even a series of dozens of magazine articles) that only provided a story about a meal at a restaurant because of some lurid detail, you would not win that argument. So if this is your actual objection (and I'm having a hard time assuming good faith that you're being honest about your own hypothetical), then I contend you have a view of notability which is extremely warped with respect to what the standard practice here is. I think you should show me an actual example that indicates the community consensus is towards your understanding. My example is to look at the backlinks to SENSATION which have a lot of references to indications other than events. jps (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is simply that you disagree with me, which is fine. As you can see in the discussion in Buell's AfD, other editors agreed with me. Seems to be that opinion is divided about notability. Thinker78 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We have a third opinion here that says there is no problem with my text. Until you provide an example of someone disagreeing with this text, I think we should reinstate. jps (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with User:Thinker78. The patch added by User:ජපස is, at a minimum, in the wrong place. --cyclopia^speak! 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about a new sentence in WP:SENSATION

Should this edit be reinstated? jps (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. jps (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - WP:SENSATION is a shortcut to a section in the event notability guideline. A general sentence like this is more suited for WP:NOT, or possibly WP:RS.- MrX 🖋 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - This is -if criteria are well defined, something that in WP:SENSATION are not- useful for WP:RS, but clearly out of place here. --cyclopia^speak! 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• While I think we do need a generalized rule like this for other topic areas, I agree that this guideline isn’t the place to express it. This guideline should concern itself purely with “events”. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes At some point - the edit makes sense overall and does not conflict with anything else here. Collect (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes What the proposed text does is prevent the "this is about a person so it's exempt"/"no, it's about an event that happened to a person so it's covered" discussion/debate/debacle that often happens. It adds clarity and documents generally wide-spread practice, which is what notability guidelines are supposed to do. It is a positive addition and should be reinstated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Per eggishorn. There are "events" that one could easily argue are more about people and thus not subjection to NEVENTS, but the advice of SENSATIONALISM applies across the board (such as the recent string of sexual misconduct charges against named individuals). This shouldn't be the only place where this advice is located, but it should be at least one of the places where it is given. --Masem (t) 18:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Eggishorn is right, this sentence reflects widespread consensus and practice, and prevents unnecessary arguments. LK (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Eggishorn, this often-abused loophole should be eliminated. Sensational coverage typically encompasses people, media, fringe claims, etc. A clarifying sentence should also be added to WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• yes as the material in question seems to me to merit inclusion somewhere, and we are probably better off in the short run possibly having it in a sub-optimal location than not having it at all. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. This is not a good guideline; I am not satisfied, for example, that the neologism "churnalism" is even a valid concept; we do not need an excuse to delete more articles, especially if they are about, for example, violence and oppression by public officials, serious misuse of official powers, official failure to prevent avoidable deaths or maladministration, reported by the "respected media" (notice that "scandal" is not defined by the guideline, and not obviously confined to things that are even arguably private); it is difficult to see why this guideline should apply equally to non-BLPs dealing with events outside of living memory (I can imagine this being erroneously invoked against something like Incitatus); it does not reflect existing practice or consensus, and should not be used to overide BIO. James500 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• No. But "this guideline" is about events, and events only. If it is to be included here, it needs to be reworded along the lines of "this guidance on the quality of sources"... not "this guideline".– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please refer to the backlinks to WP:SENSATION to see how the guideline is actually referred to in discussions. My opinion is that the new editors are sticking to slavishly to the perspective of wikilawyering and that this wording will help clarify. jps (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability of recurring "fan events"

Are there any guidelines (other than WP:GNG) about when fan conventions and charity events are notable? For example, I present two recently created articles, AzeCON and Zeldathon; nothing in WP:NEVENT seems germane to them one way or the other. More generally, there's nothing on "annual", "periodic", "recurring", or "repeated" events in the guideline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTPROMO maybe. Thinker78 (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

AzeCON seems worthy of inclusion as the only anime convention in Azerbaijan while Zeldathon is less significant but passes GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm running into the same problem with recurring annual festivals, such as music, dance or food festivals. Is there any guideline on how detailed the lineup of every year should be? There seems to be lots of francruft out there, with the names of more than 50 artists per festival listed (e.g. look at Eurockéennes), many of whom do not have their own Wikipedia article and appear not to be notable enough for one either. I wonder how relevant that is. Should we create a new guideline for recurring events if none exists yet? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow NCORP, not NEVENT. Fan events are still organized, so it is a "commercial" thing even those run as non profits. Coverage needs to be more than local. --Masem (t) 00:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is securities analysis routine coverage?

Consider for example [16]. Companies in Securities research produce such overviews as part of their routine publishing. It is reliable, but does it help with notability? I think it is something that would fall under WP:ROUTINE. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• • IMO it should count for notability as it is selective to mainly public traded large companies and is independent, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In this case, it is not independent as CREALOGIX is an Edison client. However, when such analysis is by an independent analyst (with no relation to the company) - this yes - it may be reliable, and would be a secondary source for notability. (as a general rule of thumb - most publicly traded companies (above a certain size - ignoring pink sheet and the like, and assuming they've been around for a while) are notable - just by the dint of NEWSORG and analyst coverage). Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Securities research can be either WP:ROUTINE or in-depth. Reports issued in conjunction with earnings releases or other routine corporate announcements tend to be routine; coverage initiation reports (like the one linked) and other in-depth reports can provide the necessary depth-of-coverage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove or modify WP:RAPID

As has been noted in the past thread, WP:RAPID is problematic in several ways, primarily because it contradicts WP:DELAY (so we have both "Don't rush to create articles" and "Don't rush to delete articles") and because it has been used as a filibuster in AfD discussions, leading to no consensus and as such to retention of articles of controversial standalone notability. I think WP:DELAY outweighs WP:RAPID in that WP:EVENTCRIT requires an impact and significance that already exist. Whether they appear in the future, as argued by RAPID, is basically a WP:CRYSTALBALLing, so the RAPID argument is shaky. Also, it encourages WP:RECENTISM, creating a loophole for overhyped stuff of dubious notability and significance. Propose two options to resolve it:

Option 1. Remove RAPID altogether per above. sm Option 2. Modify RAPID to something of the following (provisional wording): "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. Articles that has been rapidly nominated for deletion should be merged into relevant articles of established notability until they acquire a notability of their own. Alternatively, such articles can be userfied or incubated in the draftspace until their own notability and impact are firmly established". Brandmeister^talk 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Do nothing We have WP:ATD, ridiculously not wikilinked in WP:RAPID; linked now.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Do nothing. All WP:RAPID does is WP:DELAY the deletion... It doesn't establish notability. The correct time to evaluate an event that has a smattering of continuing coverage, for deletion, is probably a few months, a year, two years (whenever coverage dies) after the event. As long as coverage persists - the notability of an event is iffy - and it requires a crystal ball to keep or delete. There's little harm in having an article on a borderline event (kept via RAPID) - if it gets deleted down the line if turns out to be non-notable. A cycle of create, delete, create following new spurt of news (convincing other editors this "must have" an article), delete, repeat, rinse - is best broken by simply delaying the deletion cycle. There's no reward here for creating the article in contravention of DELAY (for those cases in which this is indeed borderline notability) - as the article will get deleted eventually if it is non-notable. Icewhiz (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no reward - oh yes there is, and it is called WP:Editcountitis. People count everything: new articles, DYK articles, good articles, featured articles, etc., and proudly brandish the achievements it they user page. The mostest ridiculest recognition is the worldwide recognition of the "most prolific wikipedian", who added one million commas, one million categories and one million some other equal valuables using AWB. And what about wikirat races to create the 1Mth, 2Mth, 3Mth, 4Mth articles? People preload thousands of ministubs and when the article counter says, say, 2,999,001 pages, they either launch a saver bot or frantically click "SaveSaveSaveSave..." for a lottery to nail down the 3,000,000 . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Short lived reward with looming penalty - as these page creations (as well as edits) end up getting deleted a few month months later.... Being the editor with lots of deleted articles (which show up in the edit counter) ain't good for the stats. It is much easier , for such stat seekers, to create stubs on clearly notable items (e.g. books, geo passes, etc.) - less work.Icewhiz (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Tell it to a modern teenager who does not read books, only wikipedia :-). And some smart ones are already working on all possible rivulets. And you know what? All named places in Antarctica are covered by converting USGS data into stub dummies by a bot with subsequent processing Last time I seen, 90% of the new Antarctica articles have been merged/redirected. So your suggestion is a tad late. :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1: not a helpful provision. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

All--there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wink Hartman about the application of Wikipedia:Notability (events) (specifically WP:ROUTINE) and its possible application toward an article about a person. You are invited to participate. I am involved in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:RAPID and crime

Regardless of one's opinion of WP:RAPID, there's a particular application of it that I think needs to stop. This isn't a specific proposal, but a discussion to see what others think.

I see WP:RAPID invoked in articles about current events frequently. Sometimes I get it. Other times, I really don't. For example, crimes committed in some part for the publicity. Why would we err on the side of giving publicity to that person before lasting significance can be demonstrated? Once notability is clear (including lasting significance) then of course we should cover it, but why rush? By rushing, Wikipedia contributes to the publicity the perpetrator wants before we have to.

This is probably more about a hypothetical addition to NCRIME rather than a change to RAPID.

BTW I was thinking about this earlier, so created User:Rhododendrites/Don't assume lasting significance for crime articles first, before deciding to post here, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand the "Herostratus clause", but on the other hand, shouldn't be people notified by crime/criminals for the sake of their security? While the internets will spread the word anyway, still, Wikipedia is a good firewall against rumors and fake news. If later we agree the case was nonnotable, we have AfD. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How soon can someone post about the next election?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&oldid=913832238, editor wants to release a draft of the next election into mainspace a week after the year's annual election has just concluded. I declined this because there isn't any secondary newspaper coverage on who's even running, or is going to re-run, and that the only information about it is coming from the election / council offices themselves. When should this be mainspaced, and what should be done in general for any election? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

For a local election, far too soon per WP:CRYSTAL. Definitely wait for secondary coverage to at least establish who may likely be running. --Masem (t) 19:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have seen it being done at different rates. For me, they should be created whenever any tangible and sourced info on the next election can be expected to be made available (i.e. the most common form of this are opinion polls, which can be published as early as days after a previous election has been held). However, this varies depending on the country and on the election type. For example, there is already a RfC on whether an article for the 2024 United States presidential election should be created already (and results so far point favourably to it being created just the day after the 2020 election takes place, or even earlier). But for a small council election with no scheduled opinion polling, no tangible nor sourced information on it and merely to serve out as a placeholder article, I think it could be considered too soon. Impru20^talk 19:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Can press releases be mentioned in ROUTINE?

I'd like to add the example of "press releases and their rewrites" to this section. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think you are trying to wedge this into the wrong policy. Press releases may or may not be "routine", depending on the subject matter and content thereof. However, press releases do not count in a notability analysis because they are not independent. See WP:INDY#Press releases. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

On the "(future year) in X" advice

Referring to this addition that I reverted.

I didn't participate in any of those RFCs, but I take issue with the general claim that any "(future year) in X" (where X may be any reasonably broad topic area, like countries, field, etc.) is not appropriate. We definitely do not want speculation of what events will happen. But in reference to WP:NOT#CRYSTAL we do have events that are assured to be notable, and barring extremely odd situations, are likely to occur on dates planned - per examples given, the next election in a democratic country, or the next one or two Olympics. CRYSTAL gives considerations for that. When that is the case, and past such events are documented in past "(year) in X" articles, then there seems to be no issue to start the "(future year) in X" article as long as those type of events and their dates can be sourced, and it is written as "planned" and not "will happen". Now, this is best one to two years out. Being 2020, I would not have a "2023 in X" article, but "2021 in X" is completely fair at this point. But again, key is that the criteria for such events is those outlined at NOT#CRYSTAL - events in the future that are already well-documented. --Masem (t) 17:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No, nothing here should contradict WP:CRYSTALBALL, but there should be at least a summary section here that this policy does in fact exist. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

SNGs and GNG

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Election question(s)

I hope this is the right place for these questions regarding 2022 Missouri State Auditor election which I brought to AfD for discussion, originally per CRYSTAL. I'm not a regular at AfD, and I want to be sure I am doing these things properly for future reference. The article seems, to me, to suffer from TOO SOON and CRYSTAL as only one candidate (the incumbent) is even announced. Everything else seems to be opinion pieces about who else may run. There may also be a notability problem with the particular state office article, as other states don't seem to have articles about their office at this level.

My questions:

1) Where is the cut-off for state-wide stand-alone articles on elections to offices, and how is that determined? (Example: Governor, Lt. Gov., Comptroller, State Auditor, State Representative, etc.);

2) Should I have used a different reason, or additional reasons, in the nomination than just CRYSTAL?;

3) Should I not have wasted everyone's time with this nomination and just edited the thing to cut it down to a small stub by removing speculative candidates?

4) Because the two prior elections to this office in this state have articles also, should they have been nominated also, or is that a clue that I shouldn't have brought this one to AfD in the first place?

Looking for some guidance and/or tips here. Thanks in advance. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Boxing fights

Hi! I'd like to establish some parameters as far as notability for boxing fights. As there have been tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of boxing fights, including world championship ones, parameters should be established as to which boxing fights should have an independent article apart from being mentioned in the respective boxers' articles and which should not.

The article criteria should be:

• Main or co-main events on Pay Per View
  • HBO
  • Showtime
  • Or another country's equivalent to those American channels
• Fights with a proven historical context or impact (therefore Wilfredo Gomez versus Carlos Zarate, Gomez vs. Salvador Sanchez, The no Mas Fight and Jack Dempsey vs. Georges Carpentier, for example, would qualify)
  • Fights where a country or a continent crowned its first world boxing champion
• Major organization's (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO) unification bouts
• Ring Magazine fight of the year award winning fights
  • Knockout of the year
  • Upset of the year
  • fight of the decade
• Fights that led to major changes in boxing rules or where a major scandal took place

should qualify as notable enough or as notability establishing standards for boxing fights as events notable enough to have their articles on wikipedia.

What do you all think?

Thanks and God bless! Antonio Fight me! Martin (loser talk) 07:50, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

1. PPV Events - Is that a high enough standard? Since HBO is out of boxing we could add ESPN PPV (They have Wilder vs. Fury II & III). Triller?
2. Fights where a country or a continent crowned its first world boxing champion - I think that standard is too low. There are so many belts out there, leave that to the boxer's article.
3. Unification bouts - A low standard, but maybe.
4. Ring Magazine annual award winners - Yes. Do any other outlets have similar annual awards that deserve the same recognition?
5. Fights that led to major changes in boxing rules - Do you have an example?--Jahalive (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:DOGBITESMAN" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:DOGBITESMAN and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Wikipedia:DOGBITESMAN until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Individual local elections

During NPP work I took an example of a routine local election with a "stats only" type article, went into extra detail at the AFD nomination and asked for a thorough review with the thought that the result might help provide guidance on these. Input is requested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election North8000 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)