Wikipedia talk:Notability

Hello. Was wondering what generally is considered sigcov / enough for notability when it comes to schools, in particular business colleges? I don't think I've ever written any articles about institutions or organizations before, but came across two pages that I pondered whether they deserve articles. The two schools in particular are the two entries at Template:Colleges and universities in Delaware missing articles: Hines Private Business College and Thompson's Business College (both former institutions from my home state). Thompson's has some coverage in the state papers, such as [1], [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], as well as many quick mentions; also has a page discussing it in the offline 1958 Delaware Blue Book (which I have). Hines has an article on it here as well as a number of brief mentions, including short pieces such as this on its baseball team. Do the notability folks think that either of these colleges are notable? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NSCHOOLS. Public schools need to meet the GNG, private ones, NCORP. (t) 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Private" isn't quite a synonym for "for profit" althought the distinction is moot for this particular case. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite. Many schools (such as, I think, all of the Ivy League universities in the US) are private but non-profit. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of private colleges and universities are non-profit. That's why we don't even include "non-profit" in the infobox or lede sentence for those institutions - we only include "for-profit" for the handful of institutions that differ. ElKevbo (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: Your thoughts on the mentioned two schools as to whether they meet the criteria? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither school looks to have the GNG requirement of sources covering the schools in depth, the longest articles are only a few paragraphs long and seem to half cover the person that founded the school. Masem (t) 00:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: Located three other links for Thompson as you wrote your comment up (5-7); just to confirm, could you also take a quick look at those and see if you think it makes any difference? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't think any of them provide what we are looking for in terms of significant coverage. The articles only hit a few facts but do not really delve into the school outside of a bit of history (in the case of the last article). And best I can tell, the Thompson there is a non-notable figure for us, and so as a private school, also readily fails NCORP. (t) 00:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

While this has no place in any presumed binary flow chart, IMO in the fuzzy wp:notability system, if they have a significant NGeo type presence, that can weigh in a bit towards inclusion. But I think that my point is moot for the particular example at hand. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article. WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them. Making a distinction between public and private institutions is therefore completely unnecessary. NCORP is merely meant to emphasise that sources for commercial organisations have to be looked at carefully due to advertising; it is not the deletionist's charter that some editors seem to think it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them. That is not the consensus about what NCORP requires, and WP:ORGCRIT makes very clear that the reason NCORP creates a higher standard is because it's very easy to churnalism your way to "notability". voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that this may be moot for the specific one at hand, but there's pretty wide acceptance and practice that for businesses, the additional NCorp source type criteria is used when applying GNG. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article - I don't think this reflects overall community consensus. Many topics, such as living people, corporations, numbers, and unreleased films, are subject to WP:SNGs that are more restrictive than GNG, and arguments for retaining a separate article, based on a GNG pass that does not meet those more restrictive standards, are not generally accepted in those domains.

Also, although a number of editors seem confused on this point, GNG itself is like any SNG in that it offers at best a presumption that a topic could have an article - other considerations (including WP:NOT and WP:PAGEDECIDE) always apply. I'm not assuming that Necrothesp disagrees with this, but "can" seems more assertive than "could", and the presumption is always conditional. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, 331dot, and thanks for helping at WP:Tea house. I wanted to explore a point in a Tea house response you made about Notability in this edit, where you said:

A person can technically meet the notability criteria and still not merit an article because the sources are not there.

In my understanding of Notability, that is a self-contradiction, or else I don't understand what you are saying. If someone meets notability criteria then it means the sources are there, full stop. No sources, no Notability. Afaik, the main reason not to merit an article if the N threshold passes is WP:NOPAGE, but that still requires sources. What am I missing here? Can you elaborate on your comment? (P.S. raising this here, and not at the Tea house in order not to confuse the questioner with technical discussions about fine points of policy.) Mathglot (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If a person clearly meets a SNG, but there are no sources to develop an article, then they aren't really eligible for a stand-alone page. We've really changed on this in the past few years to deprecate a lot of the SNGs especially in say sports so this is less relevant than it used to be. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I get WP:NOPAGE (when something *does* have sources meeting N but still does not merit a page), that's not the problem. I'm disputing the highlighted text, not NOPAGE. They might meet a SNG but SIGCOV still applies, so N fails. Mathglot (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I never mentioned NOPAGE. I'm discussing a situation where the one single thing we know about a topic or person is that they pass a SNG, such as someone who participated in the Olympics and made a database of Olympians. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how I feel about the quoted text, but there are certainly living people who meet WP:NPROF without sources that satisfy GNG or WP:NBASIC, and we often have articles about such people on enwiki.

So I guess the issue I have with the quoted text is the ambiguity of the phrase, the sources are not there. All articles must have a claim to significance that meets WP:V, at least, but any stronger statement than that really depends on which notability criterion is being invoked in a specific case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm hearing a case from more than one respondent that in some cases WP:SIGCOV does not apply. That is absolutely not my understanding. Otherwise the policy becomes pointless or greatly debilitated as editors argue why their article doesn't require any sources. Don't think we want to go there. Yes, always sources; no exceptions. Am I wrong about this? Please provide an example of a topic that rates an article that has no sources. My claim is, there is no such topic. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't hear anyone saying articles can exist without reliable sources - that certainly isn't my understanding. But many editors do in fact hold that verifiable, officially recognized populated places should receive a presumption of having an article whether or not a full paragraph has been written about that place in an independent, secondary source (the latter being some editor's idea of a threshold that should always apply to SIGCOV). They must verifiably meet the grounds for the presumption of notability, which requires RS verifiability, but above that threshold the existence or otherwise of a standalone article becomes a WP:PAGEDECIDE question.

Likewise, many, many articles on academics lack "SIGCOV" references - the biographical information in many of these articles comes from ABOUTSELF sources or non-independent sources (like their employers or scholarly bodies to which they belong), and while all existing articles should be verifiable, WP:SIGCOV is, well, a significantly higher standard (especially as interpreted by those editors who read SIGCOV as requiring at least three sources, all of which must meet all the SIGCOV elements including a depth requirement).

I understand that a number of editors believe that GNG applies to all articles, but that isn't the way WP:N has ever actually read, to my knowledge - it certainly isn't how it reads now. And while some SNGs are simply more restrictive than GNG, or are "predictive" of GNG, others demonstrably are not - PROF being only the best-known example of several.

Also, to Blueboar, not all SNGs are intended to predict GNG sourcing - again, see NPROF, but this also applies in certain other cases (viz. Nobel Prize winners in Economics, some of whom don't meet GNG/NBASIC). And GNG doesn't guarantee an article, either - it is also only a presumption, itself. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The SNGs outline situations where sources are extremely likely to exist… hence we “presume” notability. However, nothing is guaranteed… and on rare occasions, it turns out that the expected sources don’t exist after all. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, what is "presumed" notability, other than: "I thought this was gonna be Notable per XYZ at this SNG, and so I started looking but turned out I was wrong. It is not notable after all." I.e., it's still, "no sources, no notability". SNG's are fine as a how-to for helping to evaluate whether it's worth the time to bother trying to look for sources about this ping-pong player, but in the end, who cares what mistaken presumptions or dead-ends editors went through trying to find sources that aren't there? Maybe all the SNG's should have a disclaimer at the end, "...but if that presumption turns out to be wrong and there are no or insufficient sources, then it is not notable." Prior to this, I would've thought that would be completely unnecessary, but now I'm not so sure. Mathglot (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumed just means we can assume they're notable unless and until we can demonstrate that they're not. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(ec)I think that you are trying to read too much into the quoted comment. I think that the general intent was an observation that "you can't make an article without sourcing" and you are analyzing it as if it is a structural statement of a guideline or policy. Not that there aren't ways to read it as a structural statement of wp:notability, but I don't see the usefulness of looking for that. For example, (here I go anyway :-) the top of the wp:notability page says that meeting an SNG is sufficient so satisfy the wp:notability requirement. But most SNG's are generally worded to say that they are mere predictors of the existence of suitable sourcing or GNG sourcing. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(post-ec from above) That may very well be true (reading too much into it). I agree about "mere predictors"; maybe that needs to be clearer. Also, the more I look at it, the more the use of presumed seems to be handled inconsistently. At WP:GNG it defines the word, and says that it "means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption..." (emphasis added) and the SNGs give a bunch of predictor-criteria like awards and book reviews and such leading to a presumption (without mention sources) and the two don't sync very well. I guess if there's no harm resulting from this disconnect then we can leave it alone, but I find statements like the Tea house response could be misleading to new users, and it would be better to tell them that

"an article that has no sources or insufficient sources (i.e., fails to meet WP:GNG) is not notable and may not have a standalone article".

They can learn the fine points about SNGs later. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

NO NO NO. It is false and incorrect and wrong that an article that fails to meet GNG is not notable. We have SNGs that are independent from GNG (WP:NSPECIES is another). An article may meet those SNGs without meeting GNG. An article may meet a SNG, not meet GNG, and still be fit for an article (because its sourcing is reliable for all claims, but without multiple sources that are in-depth and independent, criteria that are not the same as reliability). Such an article is notable. It meets a notability criterion, therefore by definition it is notable. An article may meet a SNG, not meet GNG, and be unfit for an article (because it fails V because inadequate reliable sourcing). Such an article is technically notable but we should not have it. That is the whole point of this passage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

One minor semantic quibble to insert here… we are not determining whether an article is notable… we are determining whether the subject/topic of the article is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also true. But adding more language falsely equating GNG-notability with notability is not the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I can't really say anything other than what has been said here. North8000 sums up my thoughts on this. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ultimately, what determines whether we keep or delete an article is that messy and inconsistent thing we call “consensus”. If there are no sources talking about a topic, BUT the consensus is that we should have an article about it, we will keep it. Likewise the reverse. The SNGs and GNG guide us in making the decision, but (rare) exceptions can be made. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  No sources, but keep the article anyway (even rarely) because of consensus? And how do you propose to achieve neutral point of view in light of no sources? Rather, with no sources at all to measure NPOV, it would or could devolve into a free-for-all, so the content would be based, I suppose, on a majority, vote-by-original-opinion kind of consensus of what the artjcle should say? I would say with no sources you can *never* develop an article, because WP:NPOV is policy and cannot be overruled by consensus, so any consensus you achieved in the absence of sources would be worthless. Ergo, no sources, no article. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't seen any suggestion in this discussion that a topic for which no RS exist can have an article; this would violate WP:V. I don't think the quoted text at the top of this section, the sources are not there, can be reasonably parsed as "no sources exist". I think a more plausible and relevant interpretation might be, "no sources exist that uncontroversially meet WP:SIGCOV" - but lots of policy-compliant articles do not meet the strictest reading of SIGCOV (probably including most biographies of academics, for example). Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  The comment just above mine @22:47, starting: "If there are no sources...". Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well I can't speak to the intentions of any other editor, but I would parse "no sources talking about a topic" as "no sources are known to exist that uncontroversially meet SIGCOV". I suppose this reflects an inclination on my part to steelman what I read on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's generous, but if there are no sources known to exist that meet SIGCOV, what do you propose for the disposition of that topic? I think WP:NOPAGE would apply; at best, merge the content to an existing article. Do you see it differently? Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  The answer to your first question really depends on the topic, in my view. For some topics that relate to WP:GEOLAND, or WP:NPROF, or WP:SPECIES, articles are routinely retained for which no sources exist that are simultaneously independent, secondary and offering depth of coverage. It appears that the community does not agree that NOPAGE applies in these cases.

  To answer your second question: I believe NOPAGE does not apply in these cases, but my own view is that SIGCOV can be understood differently, in a way that makes sense of these outcomes. I take the specific language of SIGCOV seriously and see significance in terms of relevance to encyclopaedia writing rather than being a fixed depth requirement. This is my own view, and it "explains" the survival of articles that are in fact retained although they fail other interpretations of SIGCOV, but I do not pretend that there is consensus beind my view. I do believe, however, that there is clear consensus behind the retention of many articles that do not meet GNG or a "strict" reading of SIGCOV (as though it were parallel to WP:SIRS, for example, which it seems clear to me it is not). Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, dogmatist. But we have lots of content in article space that is not sourced, may never be sourced, and is totally non-problematic. All those surname pages that list people with a surname and a bluelinked article but don't go into any detail about the history and origins of the surname, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not sourced (ie., no citations at present) is one thing, not sourceable (i.e., unverifiable) is another. All those surname pages that don't have citations are fine if no one challenges them, but as soon as they do, the requirement for a citation kicks in. And there is no exception for lists: see WP:LISTVERIFY. Likely if the surnames are blue-linked to an article which is sourced, no one will care; that appears to be the normal case for most lists with blue-linked list entries. But if they are unlinked and uncited then if the article or the item is tagged for sourcing, then citations are required. WP:V is absolutely clear about this, and there is no escape-clause for lists of surnames or lists of anything. Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think that some folks are trying to derive categorical statements from the fuzzy ecosystem of wp:notability where they do not exist and apply them to un-realisticly simple hypothetical cases which don't exist. Unless we overtake a complete rework of the wp:notability guidelines and ecosystem, nobody is going to find the categorical tidy-ness which seems to underlie many of the points made here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't disagree about the tidiness, and to an extent all the policies and guidelines are ideals to strive for, and not infrequently they are in conflict with each other when we move from an ideal world to the scruffy reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and there are some bright lines, such as unverifiable content may be removed, and if no sources about a topic can be found, then all of the content of the article can be removed (of course in that case, it never should've been created in the first place). Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Why aren't they permitted under notability guidelines? I wanted to write an article about Garten of Banban, a video game series that has been discussed extensively on the Internet (often due to its dubious quality) but has not received coverage in major video game news publications. I understand the high requirements for source credibility in topics like science or politics. However, in the case of video games, I would argue that reviews published on YouTube by notable creators with a big outreach are enough evidence for notability. Maybe I'm completely wrong on this but I fail to see how a platform on which a review is published introduces a difference in credibility between what amounts to personal opinions of the reviewer. HallsInRealLife (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In the case of a platform like YouTube, it's not the platform itself that makes a difference but the credibility of the source (the reviewer). If Roger Ebert had had a YouTube channel and reviewed a work there, that could have contributed to an assessment of its notability; if Joe Schmoe has a YouTube channel, not so much. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Ebert was a famous and respected critic, most people who are writers for video game websites are not. That's not to say that I don't think their reviews are credible, it's just that if you asked people in the community who Jarrett Green is, I doubt you'd find many people who know (Green is just a random example from the first IGN review I clicked on). Unlike in the case of film, I'd argue that in the case of video games there isn't really a major difference in the knowledge of the medium between a Joe Schmoe from YouTube and a Joe Schmoe from IGN or GameSpot and people from social media often have the benefit of greater recognition within the community. HallsInRealLife (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you're asking is what counts as reliable source for notability purposes. I think someone like dunkey, for example, would probably be considered a reliable source for video game purposes (although WP:VG is probably a better place to ask) because he's a subject matter expert who is recognized as reliable by secondary sources. In general, however, for a source to be reliable, there needs to be a reputation for fact-checking, and unless we know that Joe Schmoe hires an independent editor who fact checks his reviews, we can't use it for anything on Wikipedia. By contrast, IGN probably holds their video reviews to the same editorial standards as their written works, and so those would be considered reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with you. I'll try to cite people who meet the secondary source criteria, if I don't find enough such sources, I'll just abandon the article idea. HallsInRealLife (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to be able to make my own articles easily without having to edit another one. Plz fix this, wikipedia.org. 66.255.214.97 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You should be able to create drafts, and once created you should be able to nominate them for review as a potential new article. See Wikipedia:Drafts. However, new users are required to demonstrate some level of experience and competence before they are allowed to create articles directly. This is a deliberate decision to protect the encyclopedia from spam and low-quality content, not a problem in need of fixing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)