Archive 70 ← Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 → Archive 80

Notability of train stations

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was requested at WP:CR, and although I'm not the admin requested, the result here is clear enough that I don't consider it contentious enough to necessitate admin closure. Also, there is still technically time left on the clock, but the longer this runs the more tilted it becomes in favor of the obvious conclusion. There clear is consensus that train stations have no inherent notability. As this RFC hasn't run the full 30 days, anyone can feel free to revert my closure without checking with me, but I'd ask that anyone doing so consider if there is any chance that the end result will change in the next couple weeks, and if it's really necessary that I come back in early August to type this all out again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


There has been heated debate recently over the claim by some editors that all train stations are inherently notable. Proponents of this idea say there is a long-term consensus establishing inherent notability of train stations. Opponents state that there is not a specific policy or guideline establishing any inherent notability. An RfC was held in 2019 [1] on this question, and closed with no consensus to find all train stations inherently notable, while also identifying several aspects of the question to be further considered. I am starting this RfC to follow up on the previous one in 2019, and attempt to come to an answer on the question of inherent notability for train stations.

I foresee the following possible outcomes of this discussion:

  1. All train stations are inherently notable.
  2. Some subset of train stations are inherently notable (for instance, excluding flag stops).
  3. Train stations are inherently notable, but may still be merged into other articles, a la WP:NOPAGE.
  4. Train stations do not have any inherent notability, and must be evaluated individually against WP:GNG and/or subject-specific notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey regarding notability of train stations

NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the construction, opening, and closing if applicable of a station would have been covered in the press basically the definition of WP:ROUTINE? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know that it fits into the examples given for WP:ROUTINE. I think the point being made here is that a new-build station, in the west anyway, is a multi-million dollar/euro/pound/CHF/whatever project that generates plenty of non-routine coverage. Mackensen (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
ROUTINE applies to event articles, not articles about infrastructure. NemesisAT (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The construction of a station is an event. If there's a lot of news about the construction of a station but, once it's built, it gains no significant attention because it's just one more place where people get onto and get off of trains, then perhaps it's sort of like saying a celebrity's child is notable for having been born because of plentiful write-ups about the celebrity's pregnancy, even if the child never got coverage in their own right thereafter. Largoplazo (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
We have stricter rules for biographies like WP:ONEEVENT, but this doesn't apply to railway station articles. I don't think your analogy is fair. NemesisAT (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with NemesisAT here. The construction of a station is a public works project that can cost millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars. These are not WP:ROUTINE; the presence of a station alone is often a big deal for a community. Having a child is something literally any two people can do, and the fact that a celebrity has a child is therefore routine. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
That certainly applies to large city important hub stations like London St Pancras, but not in the least to just the average one platform local one rail one train per day side line station. Claiming that the construction of every train station in the entire world, whichever size, is a major event and therefore every station in the world, no matter how small, is inherently notable is ridiculous.Tvx1 08:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that there are apparently 7,000,000 train stations in the world and am concerned about anything that would "green light" 7,000,000 articles on train stations. BTW, I think that reasonable folks (including NemesisAT) mostly just want to get this sorted out, and I asked for their thoughts on their talk page. This is a separate issue from some considerable drama at some train station AFD's about a sidebar issue about unsupported claims on the sidebar issue. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe create an SNG for stations on multi-track heavy rail lines, with all others reliant on the GNG way in?
7,000,000 sounds high. Great Britain has about 2,500 stations and 1% of world population, so my guess is 250,000. That increases if we include closed stations but decreases if we take into account GB's prominent role in railway history; the two effects may cancel. Certes (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think before going further we need to discuss what we mean by a "train station." That encompasses the following (at least):

  1. Physical stops on heavy rail routes that receive scheduled service from passenger trains
  2. Physical stops on rapid transit routes (metro services, subways)
  3. Physical stops on light rail routes with actual physical infrastructure (buildings, platforms)
  4. Physical stops on light rail/streetcar services with little or no infrastructure
  5. Flag stops on heavy rail routes served by the above, but potentially with limited or no infrastructure

I would assert that under current deletion outcomes the following of the above are always or almost always kept: 1, 2, 3. 4 and 5 are often merged into lists. The principle here is the physical footprint. Subway stations, for example, given the invasive nature of their construction, inevitability generate enough coverage and documentation to pass the GNG, as do new build heavy rail stations. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the definition of what we consider a "train station" for the purposes of this RfC is important. I would definitely say that flag stops with minimal physical infrastructure do not merit articles unless they somehow meet GNG. I could live with us having coverage of every train station, but I would want many to be in dedicated list articles rather than standalone 2 sentence permastubs. So I guess you could put me down under option 3, or option 4. Attempting to discuss this in individual AfDs has failed, so I am hoping the wider audience of an RfC will allow the community writ large to come to some sort of consensus on how we handle train stations which may not meet GNG. The issue of "what is a train station" almost merits another RfC. Xingke Avenue station, a permastub, was recently merged following an AfD. I support that as the model for how we handle stations about which almost nothing can be said besides "it exists". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Without objecting to the Xingke Avenue outcome per se, it's really awkward to have a section for one station in the line article when all the other station articles (I spot-checked one, it's stubby) have individual articles. To some extent articles like this should be treated as a group. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
If we get to where someone wants to start articles on all 7,000,000 then we might do something about it. I suspect for some time, they will be limited to the ones that are more notable. For example, I suspect King's Cross in London is notable, and was even before Harry Potter went there. Some might have notable architecture, or other historical interest. For some rail lines, one article with a section for each station might be about right. Gah4 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that you are describing is articles with GNG sources. On another note, from my NPP work, I can tell you that the typical isn't picking ones that look more notable. It more like picking a rail line and making an article for each station on that rail line. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yup… King’s Cross has ton’s written about it. Clearly notable. But we can’t say the same for every small town station. Consider Ticonderoga station. I really would not consider this station notable. Everything in that article could easily be presented in a chart within an article about the Amtrak “Adirondack” line. Blueboar (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Even Ticonderoga has more material and sourcing than a typical one. A nice row in a table or a section in an article on the train line would be nice, including incorporating the image. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That may be problematic if you have more than one line/route serving a station or if the routes change frequently. For example, the Ticonderoga station is actually on the Canadian Subdivision line of Canadian Pacific Railway, rather than the Adirondack line; if CP decides to revoke Amtrak's trackage rights, it wouldn't be served by the Adirondack anymore. (As an aside, that particular station is almost definitely notable, having first been built by the Delaware and Hudson Railroad in the early 20th century; there's probably plenty to write about its history.)
I'd agree with the general gist of your statement though. For example, seasonal/flag stops such as the Manitou station probably don't merit articles in many cases, as they are not covered by reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:GNG is met (with a fairly soft source evaluation)
  • Enough information is available to create a Start-class article & there is some non-trivial content as defined above (though this usually infers WP:GNG)
  • As a rule of thumb, transfer stations have murkier merge possibilities and generally making articles instead might be easier. This would more be on a case-by-case basis, for examples situations where 2+ lines share several stations (interlining) could be merged together.
  • To complete a set if most of the other stations on the line meet one of the above points (I value consistency over a hard application of the guidelines; it looks weird if every station on some route has an article except one/two of them)
In cases where none of the above is met, then articles should be listified, either to the line article or more preferably to a "List of station on the X route/line" article. I prefer creating new list articles as it provides more freedom than shoving it into the line article and prevents WP:PAGESIZE issues. A format for such a list article could be similar to List of state routes in Nevada shorter than one mile. Jumpytoo Talk 04:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The RFC has an option which clearly covers that which is #2: "Some subset of train stations are inherently notable" North8000 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem with option 2 is it excludes request stops like Achnashellach railway station which I reckon most people would lump in with heavy rail stations. Does anyone here really want to delete Achnashellach railway station? NemesisAT (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The question here is whether any are inherently notable. "None" means that they are treated like all other subjects, including Achnashellach railway station which would be kept without relying on inherent notability. Option 2 says that some subset could be defined as inherently notable. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Playing devils advocate, you could form a pretty good deletion argument for Achnashellac. All the sources appear to be directories apart from one on an accident. Option 4 opens the door to time wasting deletion discussions on stations like Achnashellac. NemesisAT (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
My own opinion is that if someone, over the years, wanted to carefully move 100% of the content from a majority of articles like that over to a section or substantial table row in an article on the train line, that would be cool. Anything more "deletiony" than that I would actively oppose.North8000 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your comment

There are some things that are necessary to include to have a functional, general interest encyclopedia. Can you name a single general interest encyclopedia that has any articles on train stations that aren't massively historically notable? Or even one that mentions all relevant train stations within other articles? Wikipedia is not a directory or road map or navigational tool, so there is zero reason for us to ignore GNG in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
While I'm of the position that we should not be giving stations presumptive notability, that does not at all mean they can't be notable. Most are. But that shouldn't preclude merging stations into other articles where appropriate. Exporting them to WikiVoyage doesn't make sense at all to me. It might be wise to handle this per line or per system. If for instance the Seattle light rail stations have been shown to by and large easily meet GNG, then I don't see any harm in keeping them all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that analysis. I think this all boils down to a misunderstanding between whether something can be notable and whether that thing should be notable. For example, there has been enough written about Grand Central Terminal that its Main Concourse easily meets GNG, even though almost no other station concourses are notable. If we are to say that station concourses can't be notable, that's likely going to disservice our readers, since the main GCT page only provides a summary of the Main Concourse.
On the other hand, we shouldn't be saying that a certain thing should be notable, either. There are systems in which all or nearly all stations are notable - such as the NYC Subway, the London Underground, or even Seattle's Link light rail - but that's because the stations in these systems are amply covered by reliable secondary sources. But these systems are the exception. Reliable secondary sources just don't exist for stations in many systems. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, goodness no, Mackensen, I am not proposing a vast deletion. I believe we should exercise good judgment in an effort to remain compliant with policy. I would think the bulk of those stations would pass per WP:NBUILD. Perhaps the time has come for us to replace some of the guideline terminology, and let "significant coverage" become "sufficient coverage". WP:Notability (geographic features) does not support inherent notability, but does support notability per the following: Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Atsme 💬 📧 02:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
It's likely that the vast majority of secondary schools have been written about significantly (and thus meet WP:GNG), but that fact does not create inherent per se notability among all secondary schools. Likewise, it is likely that the vast majority of heavy rail stations have been written about significantly (and thus meet WP:GNG), but that fact does not create inherent per se notability among all heavy rail stations. Much like WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:RAILOUTCOMES is simply a descriptive note of what tends to happen at AfD; WP:RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy or guideline and votes at AfD that are "keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES" or "delete per WP:RAILOUTCOMES" should be discarded much in the same manner that "keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" and "delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" is.
In short, railroad stations should be treated exactly like other artificial geographical features. I do not believe that a structure or building is inherently notable (i.e. worthy of notice) merely because some vehicle that moves on rails happens to stop there—even if that vehicle is cool. The relevant subject-specific notability guidelines (i.e. WP:GEOFEAT) currently do not provide any sort of support for the claim that current policies and guidelines indicate that railroad stops are inherently notable. Much like is the case for secondary schools, the mere fact that a large proportion of heavy rail stations are notable does not create inherent notability for every heavy rail station. And I see no convincing reason that WP:RAILOUTCOMES should be treated any differently than WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussions.
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively WP:NOTGAZETTEER. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
In the interest of transparency, you did start NOTGAZETTEER. NemesisAT (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
We’re not discussing mainline stations here. We’re talking about every single sort of station in every country in the world that has a railway stations. There are still many where the government doesn’t operate in professional manner and where these extensive reports you speak just don’t exist. And where it does that is merely WP:ROUTINE coverage. There is reason why hundreds of stations of a developed central European country like Belgium don’t have articles, because they just don’t receive significant coverage. Your arguments are not based on any reality and reducing this discussion to a “limited (or local) consensus” is just laughable. This is a community talk page with a clear involvement of a large community.Tvx1 09:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:ROUTINE applies to articles on events, not infrastructure. There is reason why hundreds of stations of a developed central European country like Belgium don’t have articles, because they just don’t receive significant coverage. Almost every British station past and present has an article. Thus the reason Belgian stations don't have articles is unlikely to be to do with coverage received and more likely that nobody got round to making them yet (this is the English Wikipedia after all) and the sources are harder to access/not in English. NemesisAT (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
We don't need anyone mass-creating one-line stubs for them without significant coverage existing. The community has long since realised the folly of such activity and has moved towards eliminating many notability guidelines that have facilitated it – we certainly don't need to be creating a new one. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you arguing that British stations are not notable? I don't see anyone trying to get those deleted... NemesisAT (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm simply stating that not all train stations are notable (per GNG), a position that is extremely well supported by the evidence. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Where do you see anyone mentioning British stations here?? See, that's the problem with people like you who insist on option 1. You refuse to understand that subject of this discussion is NOT UK and US only. The question is whether every station IN THE WORLD is notable by default. And that is just not the case. Not even remotely. You admitted in your reply to me that many stations in Belgium don't receive coverage, which is the definition of not being notable. If you honestly believe that every station of countries like for instance Burkina Faso is notable, you have absolutely no sense of reality. That country's railway infrastructure is literally dealt with in just one Wikipedia article. And the construction and opening of stations are very much events, thus WP:ROUTINE certainly applies.Tvx1 14:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
You admitted in your reply to me that many stations in Belgium don't receive coverage I don't think I did, which part of my reply are you referring to? May I also suggest that the reason why Burkina Faso only has one article on rail infrastructure is also because sources in English are hard to come by and/or nobody got round to searching for sources and expanding it yet? As for ROUTINE, it applies to articles about events. Articles about stations are not written about the event of a station opening, they're written on the station itself. Thus ROUTINE doesn't apply. An article on an event of a station opening would be titled "2020 opening of Kintore railway station" or whatever. NemesisAT (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
No, there is only one article because they're just not notable. What will it take to get that through to you?? As for WP:Routine, you are the one claiming that the coverage of routine events, like the opening, regarding stations are sufficient to establish sustained notability and thus sufficient to justify standalone articles. That is just not true.Tvx1 17:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I recently had the misfortune to be active in another area of Wikipedia where one group of editors raised 1400 XfDs whilst another defended them. Not only did it severely damage that part of the encyclopedia, it dragged several of us away from other duties for a year and resulted in blocks and removal of other privileges. It seems unlikely that certain pairs of prolific editors will ever co-operate again. Please think carefully before starting a purge. Certes (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Secondly, WP:CONSENSUS, which trumps all other "rules" on WP, has long held that stations are inherently notable. I don't see a limited consensus by an RfC at for a few days in July, 2022 superseding the long standing consensus. How are AfDs dominated by railfans a better judge of sitewide consesnus than a sitewide RfC? It's fairly obvious by the comment already made in this RfC that Option 1 is not a consesnus view. But most importantly, volunteer editors are the most valuable resource this project has and have much better use of their time in creating new articles and improving existing ones. If editors suddenly have to constantly turn their attention debating the "notability" of the tens of thousands of articles on train stations then the the process of the much needed improving of articles by those editors will be hindered greatly. [...] We need to move on to focus on making articles better, not get bogged down on further busywork and time-consuming acrimonious debates that were totally avoidable. Meeting GNG means a minimum of solid sources are procured so that a decent article can be written. Requiring GNG be met facilitates better articles, or at the least articles with better potential. So, "if editors suddenly have to constatnly turn their attention to" providing a minimum of good sources, maybe things would improve. You make it sound like train-focused editors are too lazy and/or incompetent for it to be expected of them to write articles which meet a minium standard. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Certain editors seem to think this RfC is an attempt to mass delete train stations. I don't recall adding such an option to the RfC when I made it. As a train-focused editor, I completely agree with Indy beetle here. You don't get a special carveout from the policies the rest of Wikipedia follows just because "volunteer editors are the most valuable resource this project has and have much better use of their time in creating new articles and improving existing ones." It's not very difficult to write a train station article that meets GNG. Anyone writing decent train station articles wouldn't have to worry about any of the articles they wrote being deleted or even merged. But we have thousands of articles like Oscawana station (random example I happened to find in NPP) that are straight up garbage. The article in question is 2 sentences long, has grammatical and informational errors (lists 2 different closing dates) and adds nothing to Wikipedia that couldn't be done by making it an entry in a list. Yet a vocal minority says that we can never even merge train stations just because. Train stations have been allowed to utterly fail our basic standards of notability and quality for far too long. If asking that each standalone train station article is more than a 1 or 2 sentence stub is too much, I'm not sure what to tell you. And guess what? If an article on a train station gets merged and more sources are identified, the merge can be undone! But editors are more interested in bludgeoning and wikilawyering here and in numerous AfDs than simply creating halfway decent articles, which would completely avoid the issue of not meeting GNG in the first place. The level of entitlement I'm seeing here from some editors in the subject area I work in is concerning. Policies and guidelines apply to everyone. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
That this is even a question shows where SNGs have gone completely wrong over the years. Of course there are railway stations that have no real coverage ever! Lots of them! The idea that every railway station opened in a town significant enough to have a local newspaper is obviously not true! The North American west and Australian outback in particularly is littered with failed or never-even-started towns which had a briefly-open railway station, or stations that were merely watering stops or to service local industry (particularly mines).
We have an absolutely massive problem with tens/hundreds of thousands of mass-created GEOSTUBs (of which railway stations are a subset) resulting from the assertion from a small number of editors that any mention of a location that was ever arguably "populated" in any kind of source of even the most minimal detail is evidence that the location was a legally-recognised populated-place per WP:GEOLAND#1. I've seen a bare-mention of a place on a long list of post-offices (in the American west where post offices would simply open in stores/mines etc. for a year or two miles from any actual community) touted as evidence that the place must have been a legally-recognised populated-place equivalent to an incorporated town. Listings on GNIS and the Geonet Names Server (which are not reliable for whether a place was ever populated) were converted en masse into stub articles regardless of whether they made any sense - including listings that were in open water according to the location data.
It's time to push back against these mass-creation facilitating SNGs. We made a good start by taming WP:NOLY, WP:NCRIC, and WP:FOOTY and other sports bio SNGs which were being used as an excuse to write articles about people who were not in any meaningful sense notable and about whom no actually significant coverage was ever going to be found ever because it did not exist (especially 19th century sportsmen who played e.g., two games of cricket for Oxbridge, or appeared in an Olympic event when the Olympics simply weren't a big event, or played a single match for Hungary in 1904). Exactly the same thing is true of the many, many "populated places" and "railway stations" in the world that existed only very briefly and whom few people ever knew existed, and about which we have tens of thousands of contentless stubs - nothing will likely have ever been written about many of these places because there was nothing to write and no-one to write it.
And for those places where there are at least two instances of WP:SIGCOV? Well then go ahead and write the article - but do the research necessary to see that there is an article to write first. FOARP (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
PS - let me also be the first to mention WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT which these articles are typically a massive violation of. FOARP (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD stats

Since 31 March 2019 there have been 30 AfDs about 68 individual rail transport stations recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts and archives 4-7 (there were bulk nominations of 13 and 27 articles). There were an additional 15 AfDs about individual rail transport stations recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation/archive but not in the article alerts archives (no bulk nominations, but 1 station was later included in the larger of the two bulk nominations). Where it was clear from the nomination, all were about heavy rail or metro stations. The outcomes were as follows:

Outcome Number Notes
Keep or Speedy keep 24
Withdrawn 3
Merge 4 Includes 1 where it was unclear if it was actually a station or just a goods platform, and 1 proposed station on a planned line
Redirect 14 13 were a single nomination of closed stops "only marked by yellow bands on a pole"; the other had verifiability issues
Delete for notability reasons 1 This would almost certainly have been a merge if an article about the line existed
Delete for other reasons 29 2 were deleted for lack of verifiability, 27 were deleted in a single nomination of proposed stations on a planned/proposed system.
No consensus between keep and merge 1
Other no consensus closes 3 Includes 1 station later deleted as part of the bulk nomination of proposed stations.

Additionally I found one nomination of an individual tram stop, this was merged to the article about the railway station of the same name 200 metres away. So in the last 3¼ years only 1 article about a railway station that verifiably exists or existed has been deleted at AfD and that lacked a suitable merge target. There is no other equivalent log I found. I tried searching the AfD log for "railway station" and "tram stop" but the first four and three pages of results respectively didn't find any additional AfDs from the relevant time period. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is circular reasoning to argue that train stations are automatically notable because of a history of AfDs in which it was argued that they are automatically notable. The history would be a valid argument in an AfD, where we would like to maintain consistent WP:OUTCOMES, but I think it is invalid in an RFC in which we are trying to determine whether they really should be considered automatically notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be a longer table of train stations brought to AFD here. Looking through the early discussions, the idea of "precedent suggests keeping all train stations" emerged quickly. But in those early discussions, (such as WP:Articles for deletion/Route 128 Station [overturned] and WP:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station [later recreated]), the discussion was similar to the discussions here, with keep comments like "By having the stub, it also encourages others to add information about the station (someone who lives in the area may be inclined to take pictures, etc)." (by Neier) and "Railway station are accepted as notable because they have commonality of information across other articles, plus they also get additional information" (by Gnangarra). For me, precedent does not equate to inherent notability, and the global community can certainly override local perspectives. The question in my mind is whether this RFC actually will make much of a difference (except that authors are expected to do more [as they should] than "this station exists." The stations themselves are verifiable, many stations, at least where I am familiar, receive reliable sourced coverage. And, in the event that the sourcing of a station is less than ideal, the station will probably be merged. (This is what is happening with Olympians, as very few Olympic athletes are actually deleted). Enos733 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This is what is happening with Olympians, as very few Olympic athletes are actually deleted) That's not true at all. I'd say the majority are deleted or redirected. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I think a merge/redirect is quite distinct from deletion, as redirects are preferred to deletion per WP:ATD. I believe the stations that do not pass GNG would end up as part of a list of the main rail line. At the risk of going off-topic, the archive of discussions of Olympians is primarily redirects to the sport they participated in (unless the athlete is known only by their initials). - Enos733 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Nothing at ATD says redirecting is preferred over deletion, just that it's an option. And anyway, redirection is exactly in line with the intent of article deletion: elimination of a standalone article. That's why AfD stats groups it with delete outcomes. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
How many of those keeps were based on editors actually finding enough sources to meet GNG? And how many were clearly BADNACs? JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
That's a heavy lift and I'm reluctant to undertake it; I'd rather develop a guideline. The few AfDs I spot-checked led to the adding of sources, if not significant expansion. Debate was cursory. There was also a pretty clear lack of WP:BEFORE; which isn't required but might have been helpful. That's especially true for articles for stations in foreign countries, where the foreign language wiki has more information. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I think if a non-trivial number of these keeps are due to the subject actually meeting GNG, or even arguments that advance a presumption of GNG sourcing, then the claim of a consensus that such stations are inherently notable is inaccurate. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know that one precludes the other given the lack of a written policy (besides the GNG). To the extent that some editors hold a belief in "inherent notability" (not a phrase I encountered with railway stations prior to this RfC), then it's grounded in the belief that for any given station sources will exist, although they might not be present. To an extent, someone arguing that the subject passes the GNG and someone saying all train stations are notable are advancing roughly the same argument, with the exception that the former probably conducted a more individual assessment of the station as an article as opposed to the station as a member of a class. To know for certain what people thought, it wouldn't be enough to look at the close, you'd have to evaluate each debate, and then make an individual assessment of whether (a) the closer got it right and (b) which rationales were valid. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable. Reasonable minds can and do differ at AfD. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
If the editors claiming inherent notability actually meant "SIGCOV likely exists" then why wouldn't they say that instead of repeating Very longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable at every single AfD? Why would they be insisting stations are inherently notable for reasons other than presumed receipt of SIGCOV, like that we need every station so that the "adjacent stations" feature(?) isn't "incomplete", or that for an encyclopedia to be "functional" it must contain standalones on each one? JoelleJay (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I understand why the analysis above was conducted that way, though I think it's not actually capturing the true extent to which railway stations have come to AfD (and it greatly underestimates deletion). I recall when people were going through GNIS stubs there were quite a few instances in which an alleged municipality wound up appearing to be a former railway station about which basically nothing other than their name/a timetable containing their name is written (and for some, it's not even clear what the true name of the station was). Quite a few have been deleted on this basis since the summer of 2020, including: White Stick, West Virginia; Delaney, Washington; Tiflis, Washington; Pyles Marsh, Georgia; Farmers, Virginia; Wilson, Ohio County, West Virginia; Kevet, California; Oakley, Missouri; Goltra, Missouri, Horrock, West Virginia; Tatu, California; Sonora Junction, California; and Pinnio, California. I'm also seeing Harney, Nevada (which now exists as a redirect to 1939 City of San Francisco derailment). I don't think that these sorts of apparent railroad stations are actually notable, either by passing WP:GNG or by a common sense of the word. Nobody seems to have suggested that the articles should have been kept and their name+content modified to reflect that the entities were former railroad stations, but that's what WP:DEL-CONTENT would command if the editors thought the topic was notable and the article could be fixed by ordinary editing (which... is very easy for geostubs). I don't immediately have a clear way to do a systematic review of GNIS-related geostub deletion discussions in which editors discovered that a location was actually an abandoned railroad station, but going through search results manually it looks like they almost entirely got deleted if WP:SIGCOV wasn't found. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mhawk10 nobody is arguing that stations that are not verifiable should be kept, and in many of the cases you cite verifiability of basic facts like the name was weak at best, so they aren't relevant to this discussion. I would argue though that were we can verify that $railroad had a stopping point at $place (from at least xxxx to at least yyyy) that should be included in a list associated with that railroad, but again lists of railway stations are not relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I agree that it's fair to say that articles that wholly fail WP:V should generally be deleted after thorough attempts to verify them have been made and were unsuccessful. But that leaves discussions like Horrock (which we could verify was a flag stop), Pyles Marsh (which was clearly a train stop), and that Harney (was a train station). And, in any case, your table still excludes these sorts of articles that were actually railroad stations, which skews the data towards keep. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2022 (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.

Proposed roadmap for the train station topic

The catalysis for this RFC was probably from some recent heated discussions at several AFD's by someone making numerous related claims including that all train stations are inherently notable and berating anyone who didn't agree. Also (contrary to what the essay itself says) saying that the outcomes essay in essence says this and overrides the guidelines. But it also relates to an underlying question which I think needs sorting out. We should probably let this RFC conclude just on that narrow question which I think would be a snow "there's no such thing as inherent notability" and that NO topic is granted that status, and a part of the close would be that there will be a next phase of the discussion so that nothing broader is implied from this narrow finding.

Then I think we should have a second 2 stage conversation about whether we should officially tilt the balance on train stations a bit (or at least towards the types that currently have articles on) towards inclusion, similarly to how we do that for geographic places. It should include persons knowledgeable on current types and coverage and also folks a bit more distanced from the topic. Probably the first phase of the conversation should be how best to cover a typical train station article in question....a extant train station with a real building on an active rail line, with no included GNG type sources. (We'd probably want to firm up that stations that are e.g just a sign and a sidewalk or a flag stop along the tracks are not candidates for some special treatment.) I think that the realistic possibilities for the main type of article in question would be a separate article, or a section/substantial table row in a broader article such as on the rail line. If the answer leans towards "separate article" or if there is at least substantial support for that, then we would propose a SNG provision (probably within wp:Geo) that would tilt things towards inclusion of those intended types. Like all SNG's it would give those intended types of stations a defacto (ostensibly temporary) GNG bypass while acknowledging that GNG is the ultimate standard. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Fully support any easing of inclusion criteria for railway stations and I still believe a separate article for each station is the way to go. A reasonably simple criteria for defining a railway station would be an existing or defunct stop with raised platform(s) on a national rail system (ie, not a heritage line). This excludes tram and bus stops. NemesisAT (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
That essay is useful if only used in the intended limited way but is easily and often misused and so has done a lot of harm. It has also done harm in another way because it has become a poor-substitute enabler for not cleaning up the big vague confusing situation at the notability guidelines. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Either way we need to discuss it and settle it. My post was a proposed roadmap and not intended to be the start of the discussion. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The catalysis for this RFC was probably from some recent heated discussions at several AFD's by someone making numerous related claims including that all train stations are inherently notable and berating anyone who didn't agree. For the record, I would like to point out the blatant inaccuracy of this statement. The argument was that consensus has long been that all stations are notable. There was no "berating". There was merely a statement of fact that the delete voters chose not to acknowledge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with several aspects of your post but what matters most is resolving the overall issue. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. However, I would direct you to this discussion and ask you to spot which editor on which side of the argument was accusing the other side of "tired, worn out, and mindless" arguments, of posting "spam", of being "disruptive" and, most recently, that "your argument is full of shit", and then maybe reassess your comment! Unpleasantness and deliberately inflammatory language is pointless and gets us nowhere. This is an encyclopaedia, for crying out loud, not a battlefield! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
A perfect example of what I am talking about below, a stub that could easily fit (and expand, and that parent article is one line, it could do with expanding) into another article, with no loss of information. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Consider which editor continues to obstinately trot out the exact same talking point endlessly without any real evidence. I started an RfC to attempt to resolve the issue. It turns out there is broad consensus against your argument that "all train stations are inherently notable" but I'm sure you will find a reason to disregard this RfC and carry on exactly as before. You may object to my language if you'd like, but the community input here has not been in support of your argument, agreeing with the substance of "your argument is full of shit" though not using the same language. Perhaps I'm frustrated that you refuse to even for a second consider there might be valid arguments in opposition to yours. I have attacked your argument with that statement, not you personally. If you choose to interpret that as unpleasantness and deliberately inflammatory language, that's your choice. How about your incorrect interpretation of consensus as something which cannot ever change? Is that not disruptive? You would have it that if something has been done a certain way for a while, it can never ever be changed again. Would you say we shouldn't have abolished Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, because "we've been doing it this way for years and consensus clearly supports keeping it"? By starting an RfC, I have gone about the proper route for evaluating what consensus, if any, exists amongst the broader community on the subject. You don't have to like it, but as you love to tell others, not liking a consensus doesn't mean it doesn't govern just the same. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings: You may object to my language if you'd like - I've looked at several of your comments here and at that AfD, you should WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The contributor in question copy-pasted the exact same (totally dubious) message to a large number of AfDs. Perhaps you can understand why one might find this frustrating. And further, why it is frustrating to be accused of wanting to delete everything. Contrary to what some seem to believe, I care a great deal about content. I've written dozens of articles. I want the encyclopedia to grow. But this absurd "no train station article can ever be merged, let alone deleted" has been inhibiting the normal functions of Wikipedia in this subject area. Criticize the messenger all you like, the message needed to be heard. We need an actual policy or guideline here, not just "we keep all train stations because we keep all train stations". I suggest that train stations that fail GNG should be merged into lists, and people come at me saying I have started "a discussion where trains editors are being castigated". Never mind that if it wasn't extremely obvious, I am a train editor and the one who started this RfC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you deny writing this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
"Do you deny writing this? Why would I deny writing it? The editor in question has been disruptive and I was rightfully calling them out for it. This isn't the own that you seem to think it is. My contribution history is freely available for any editor to see. That diff does not in any way refute the argument that we need to come to an actual consensus on this issue, nor does it change the fact that this editor has been copy pasting the exact same nonsense into a large number of AfD discussions. I have explicitly cited evidence finding directly against the user's arguments (such as the 2019 RfC mentioned just below) and yet they ignore it in favor of their preferred POV. It is fundamentally wrong to operate with unwritten rules about notability. Everyone should be on the same playing field. And that is why I started this RfC. You can call it partisan if you want, but such concerns have not been echoed by the vast majority of participants. This RfC needed to happen. You should be more concerned about one editor attempting to rewrite the very definition of consensus and shut down any discussion on an entire subject area. Yet you focus on my getting frustrated at their obstruction instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
What I'm seeing there is understandable frustration at a someone (who frankly should know better) persistently and repeatedly claiming a consensus that plainly does not exist, i.e. that "all railway stations are notable" when it's quite obvious (even from the linked guidelines/essays they presented, never mind elsewhere, e.g. the 2019 RFC) that the opposite is true. To me, this kind of behaviour is more problematic. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem with this ""road map" is that most railway stations will be associated with a place that already is notable. As such we will have Southend-on-Sea, Southend Central Southend Victoria. Often little more than stubs. The reader would thus be best served by not having to wade through tons of links, but to read a concise article. Only when (and if) a station is truly notable would they actually need a separate article?. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Slater - public/private transport belongs in the city article, not as a standalone. The global transport is standalone notable including international airports. A specific national route may be notable. Anything beyond that gets into NOTGUIDE territory. Atsme 💬 📧 16:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't reconcile your comments with the present state of coverage with railroad topics. A specific national route may be notable Are you suggesting that commuter rail routes are not notable? Because we have articles on all of them, and the stations they serve. We have articles on the roughly 500 stations that Amtrak serves, and their routes; are you favoring a mass merge? Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Can you please explain how an article on a minor railway line or station falls foul of WP:NOTGUIDE? NemesisAT (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Mackensen! Happy 4th if you celebrate it. 🎆🧨 Amtrak is certainly notable, but should we have 500 different articles for each train station in the continental US, not to mention every other means of public/private transportation around the globe? Generally speaking, I think not, but yes for those that can pass GNG. Can admins mass merge like they do mass delete? I think it's better for the project if we do, especially when considering size on a global scale, not to mention the ongoing maintenance of those articles. If Amtrak is allowed to have standalone articles on its individual stations, then what about the List of railway stations in Canada, List of railway stations in India, List of railway stations in Indonesia, List of railway stations in Pakistan, and on and on and on? And that's just the tip of the iceberg on a global scale. The lists are fine, but I'm of the mind that individual standalone articles for each station, just because they exist, pushes us deep into WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE territory, not to mention failure to comply with WP:N. We need to remind ourselves of the 5 pillars starting with #1. Leave the listings for real online directories, city tourism brochures & directories, and merge the standalone articles into their respective city articles where they will be most beneficial to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
None of the six bullets in WP:NOTDIRECTORY appear to be applicable to railway station articles. The irony is that merging station articles into a list of stations as suggested by some would actually be more at risk of falling foul of point #1.
As I wrote above, WP:NOTGUIDE prohibits phone numbers, prices, and biased selections of restaurants, attractions, etc. It certainly does not exclude articles on railway stations. I don't think it is applicable here. NemesisAT (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Online directories don't cover things that an encyclopedia does. Amtrak's listing of stations will not, in general, give you the history of the station, or the physical line, or non-Amtrak services (for example). It would point to a policy violation if our articles could be replaced by an online directory listing. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
NemesisAT, for clarity of my position, WP:NOT states (my bold underline for emphasis): Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. I'm of the mind, perhaps arguably so, that my use of NotDirectory & NotGuide falls within the original intention of what WP is not. Examples are not the final word, they're simply examples. hth Atsme 💬 📧 02:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My "roadmap" was intended to just consider the question, and after a finding that "train stations aren't inherently notable". Maybe it sounded too much like "let's propose an SNG provision" which was not my intention. But a proposed SNG provision can be rejected and either way would probably mostly settle this. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a SNG is probably the way forward. I was idly wondering if given that WP:NSCHOLAR explicitly says it's an alternative to WP:GNG, and criteria #1 is basically with enough scholarly citations they are notable, something similar could be applied to passenger counts per year at it's peak for train stations (i.e. not just currently, to allow for historically busy stations)? Then assess the smaller ones more like WP:GNG. Disclaimer: I have not thought this through very carefully. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
NSCHOLAR predated the GNG and other SNGs, and so it is not recommended to follow its pattern. And notability is not based on popularity so using a metric like passenger counts would not be appropriate as a presumption of notability. --Masem (t) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Good point. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If I were trying my hand at a guideline, I would want to recognize that while many stations truly stand on their own as independent topic (Pennsylvania Station (New York City) and Grand Central Terminal are obvious examples), in many cases we're dealing with content that is effectively "broken out" or split from one or more parent articles. The thing about a station is that there are multiple parents (or merge targets, if you prefer): the company the owns it or built it, the physical line or lines that it is located on, the service(s) that stop there, and the locality. This is a many-to-many relationship: localities may have one station or many, and by definition lines, services, and companies have multiple stations. Can these stations be grouped in a list article? Yes, of course, but how best to do this so that (a) it makes sense to current and future editors and (b) is useful and obvious to readers. Editors have until this point treated many (not all) station articles as a group, and any guideline coming out of this discussion should take that into consideration. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this take. "Notability" isn't real anyway. Editors should just arrange the information in whatever way makes the most sense for the particular content. Sometimes that means a train station gets its own article, sometimes it should be combined with other articles, etc. These are all WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:SPINOFF issues. The question isn't "keep" or "delete", it's "merge" or "split". Levivich[block] 00:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of exactly how the community proceeds with station notability, I would make the (fairly obvious) point that the project would benefit from maintaining appropriate redirects for less notable stations, to populate the category system in instances where the best textual treatment of the station is in a broader article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mackensen, I agree with your point that there could be multiple merge targets for topics which may not be notable. But in many cases, there may only be one or two merge targets:
  1. The company that owns it or built it - This should almost never be the merge target. Stations can be owned by several companies over the course of their history. Many companies own dozens if not hundreds of stations, so including it in a single company's page would be WP:UNDUE.
  2. The physical line or lines that it is located on - This should probably be the best target if there's not that much to say about a station (i.e. a permastub).
  3. A list of stations on a line, or a list of stations in a network - If the above is unfeasible for some reason, then a spinoff list should also work.
  4. The service(s) that stop there - Probably not a good idea, as services can change based on trackage rights and/or reroutes. This should only be used if the line if the same as the service and there's only one service.
  5. The locality - I have seen this pop up several times in the above survey. This is a decent option if there's more than a few sentences about the station and if there's very little possibility of the station actually being notable. However, it is not a good option if the locality has several stations and/or if the locality has a particularly long article. In that case, perhaps it's a good idea to write an article about railway stations in that locality, e.g. Railway stations in Newmarket. If there's more than a few paragraphs about the station, this may be an indication that it should be a standalone article, anyway.
– Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The difficulty with option 2 is that the line name may be descriptive instead of proper (i.e. X-to-Y line) and/or almost entirely unknown to the reading public (who's heard of X Subdivision or Y Branch?) Assuming it becomes necessary, it'll have to be workshopped after the RfC. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I see your point. My thinking is that most railway lines meet GNG, even if the stations on them do not. In the case of particularly obscure lines, it is possible that there are stations on that line which don't meet GNG. Your second point ("that a line may be almost entirely unknown to the reading public") indicates a problem with railway lines in general. The public is more familiar with the service that stops there, even though that service's article is not physical infrastructure - and when the service gets rerouted, now the article talks about a station that isn't even on that route anymore. That's why I said option 4 was not a good idea. By contrast, option 2 ties the non-notable railway station to a piece of physical infrastructure, which means the info won't become outdated if passenger services are discontinued or modified. But like you said, this may need to be worked-out later. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the only clear cut finding out of this RFC can be that there is no inherent notability. And possibly a reflection on the frequency of them having wp:notability which is merely an observation regarding GNG. At that point it inherently becomes "apply GNG". There are a few other questions woven into the dialog which I can't see the current RFC finding and answer on. And so I would like to reiterate my proposed roadmap contained in the first two paragraphs of this section. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@NemesisAT: With 42 posts so far working towards a particular outcome, IMO you are getting pretty close to bludgeoning status on this discussion. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have now made 43 posts working towards your desired outcome. Certes (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Other than the already wp:snow outcome of "there is no such thing as inherent notability" which has no need for my posts, I don't have a "desired outcome" and am only trying to help. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to @NemesisAT: for my mis-statement above. I was confused between editors and mistaken. Their comments have been measured and expert, not working towards a particulate outcome. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest closing this RfC with no action

I withdraw the suggestion. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

As multiple editors have noted above, this RfC was malformed from the outset. It failed to define what a train station even was for the purposes of a discussion. Many people who commented afterward are apparently unaware of the existing scope of coverage of rail-based topics on Wikipedia. Put another way, if this RfC was reframed as "should we consider merging or deleting tens of thousands of articles", that would rightly be considered disruptive and requiring more thought and nuance, yet that's the effective outcome some people are for, though I suspect they don't realize it. There is also the unsettling possibility that this RfC was opened bad faith in order to win a content dispute. I would draw everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan'an South railway station, and Trainsandotherthings foul-mouthed rant directed at Necrothesp [3]: Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly. Yes, that comment comes two days after the RfC was opened, but it speaks to state of mind. By Trainsandotherthings own admission (see User_talk:Trainsandotherthings#Notability of train stations), they should have asked for help at WT:TRAINS about drafting the RfC before making it live, but they didn't, and here we are. Do we need better guidance on the notability of train stations? Yes. Will this RfC provide it? No. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't about "winning". If the overwhelming consensus here was "yes, train stations are notable" I would have respected that. But at this point it seems my involvement is generating more heat than light. Close this if you want, but in that case someone else needs to pick up the issue instead of me. I don't care who does it. But this issue needs to be resolved. And I am a believer that if you want something to be done, you have to do it yourself. So I started this RfC, because it was clear nobody else was going to do it at the time. Did I get upset about this issue? Yes, I did. It's been profoundly frustrating to see my and other editors' attempts to follow policy and guidelines ignored by certain editors. If this is really to be closed with no action, then this needs to be followed up at WT:TRAINS rather than being left as determining nothing. I'm going to remove this page from my watchlist now as it's clearly not healthy for me to continue this argument right now considering I'm swearing at people. Ping me if you need me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Trainsandotherthings also threatened to take me to ANI on a seperate railway station AfD, without bothering to let me know. That was a bit off, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
And so what if the OP started this discussion due to an AfD dispute -- are the editors most involved in notability standards on a certain topic not allowed to initiate RfCs on it? Also, you're literally the only one calling this RfC "malformed". Everyone else has been able to address any perceived nuance with the content of their !vote, which is what the closer is supposed to look at anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, the current guideline for determining train station notability is the GNG, no matter what editors citing "consensus" claim. Trains do not have a community-approved SNG, so there is no basis other than a vague appeal to consensus/AfD outcomes to support inherent notability. How many of those AfDs were closed as keep solely on the premise that any subset of train stations is always notable, versus kept because editors actually engaged with GNG and found SIGCOV (or strong indications thereof)? You can't point to a bare outcome as evidence that a particular argument has consensus, otherwise we could just prohibit footballer articles with the reasoning that most of the ones brought to AfD in the last year got deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (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.

Where should articles be merged to?

Editors have suggested merging railway station articles. My concern is this will create in inconsistency not only in some stations having articles and others not, but also in where to find railway station articles and this will make reading and editing Wikipedia worse. Editors have proposed merging to settlement articles, rail company articles, railway line articles, or even creating new articles for listing stations.

Just some thoughts NemesisAT (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We already have all kinds of subjects (e.g. golf courses) where some examples meet GNG and have articles, and others don't meet GNG and are redirects to a variety of other articles (villages/towns/cities/communities, parks, country houses/mansions/castles, hotels/resorts, colleges/universities, etc.). The same goes for train stations – while we could have general guidance, targets should ultimately be decided/discussed on a case by case basis and they don't need to be consistent. Same goes for multiple lines scenarios. Simply adding categories to the redirect enables navigation to be retained. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@NemesisAT: "Rail line" can mean different things. I think the most common one is one referring to a physical "path" of tracks. Others are more ethereal and less track/infrastructure oriented which can result in considering two different trains running on the same track to be on two different lines. When you said that a station can be on multiple lines, which meaning were you referring to? North8000 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Merge to wherever the information fits best, depends what the content actually is. If the information fits into two other pages, by all means duplicate it. The question also feels not that useful, as an article with lots of reliably sourced information on varied topics is likely going to be one that is notable. As for categories, that's putting the cart before the horse, as there's no need to categorise what isn't a page (although in some cases redirects do get categorised). CMD (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the main "bulk" of the content should be in a List of stations article if using prose (preferred), and/or on the line article in a table (less preferred), and that's where the redirect should be targeted to. All active stations should also be noted in the settlement articles, but much more briefly, as important information on the regions transport. For transfer stations, I would lean towards keeping them in absence of a good merge target, but typically transfer stations are more important so they are more likely to pass GNG. For other cases like interlining, that could be done on a case-by-case basis. Jumpytoo Talk 18:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition of type of 'train station' for this AfC

At least three other notability guidelines - Wikipedia:NPOL, Wikipedia:NGEO, and Wikipedia:GEOFEAT - acknoweledge that certain topics (national level politicians, incorporated communities, and national monuments, for example) always qualify for an article and consistently apply the concept of 'automatic inclusion'. As has been noticed and noted above, the cited 2019 AfC and this current AfC do not define what which type of stations would qualify for that status in Wikipedia. In this AfC numerous contributors have suggested that some stations would, but the lack of definition/parameters has led to confusion. Several have said some stations (mentioned but not defined in Option 2 above as some subset of train stations is a workable parameter if there were a clear idea of subject stations that are eligible. In order to better address that ambiguity and the purpose of this AfC more specifity is needed. Discussions about terms presumed and/or inherent are ongoing ands exhaustive; there's little reason to repeat them here. The scope of the question in this RfC subsection limited: to narrow down and clariify a types/sets of stations. Some suggest that heavy rail (intercity/commuter) passenger stations and mass transit stations (metro/subway/undergound) would fit the description of a train station for those purposes. Comments about light rail and tram stops, freight depots, flag stops, rail sidings, etc. were more vague. A few (from the myriad) of options include:

Djflem (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Djflem, Slatersteven, NemesisAT, Mackensen, Blueboar, Joe Roe, Asartea, Verbarson, Rhododendrites, Ymblanter, Wjemather, Largoplazo, Bluerasberry, Atlantic306, Sj, Thryduulf, Kj cheetham, JuxtaposedJacob, J947, Nyamo Kurosawa, Ravenswing, TheCatalyst31, Mhawk10, Benjaminikuta, Wbm1058, Epicgenius, Visviva, Certes, Cards84664, G-13114, Oakshade, MB, and Huggums537: Djflem (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

None of those say topics "always qualify for an article and consistently apply the concept of 'automatic inclusion'." They say certain topics are "presumed notable" which is different than "inherently notable". "Presumed notable" topics can still be determined NOT to be notable if sources are not found. No stations should get 'automatic inclusion' regardless of the definition of a station. MB 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
True… but the type of sourcing and depth of coverage will still be different, depending on whether we define a “station” as a location or as a building/structure. So it would help to clarify which guidance applies. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
(I wasn't replying to you, indentation mistake) MB 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
In practice and as is agreed by consensus those topics (at least three examples given) DO qualify for automatic inclusion if the information is verified. That's the way it is. Djflem (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear if we use the Wikipedia definition of a train station and station building. While trains can stop at places without a building the building it very highly unlikely to exist/have existed without trains. Places were there is longer service are generally described as "former" stations whose buildings are those no longer serve their original purpose. Djflem (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Folks are saying loud and clear that there's no such thing as "inherent notability". That still leaves the door wide open to consider "presumed notability" under a new SNG, which is a VERY different thing. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
"Option 4 - No inherent notability - follow GNG" You are only quoting half of it. I won't dispute that you don't like the outcome, but please don't mistake our POV as meaning you can somehow slip in some "compromise" which flies in the teeth of a plain consensus position. We do not feel the need for a notability guideline here. We believe that the GNG is sufficient to the purpose. And, I expect, we generally accept that there will be mergers and redirects in consequence. C'est la vie. Ravenswing 21:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

216 Iranian "village" articles nominated for deletion

This has already been highlighted on the Iran and Geography Delsorts, but interested parties who may have missed those notices can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agro-Industry Complex. FOARP (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on guideline page

I have chosen to fully protect this page for a standard duration of two days. I'm happy to relax this protection if the parties who are edit warring on this essential guideline page will agree to stop disagreeing in live pagespace and begin to do any re-writing first here on the talk page. I'm taking this course to avoid any inference that I have any dog in this hunt, wrong version issues aside. I am sure all the editors involved are trying to do the right thing. There can be no disagreement there IS IN FACT a dispute which ends to be solved on talk. I have zero issues with an uninvolved admin changing protection level back to indef semi (where we were before my action) if they feel the need. BusterD (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi BusterD, thank you very much. I just posted to your userspace and only saw this comment after I finished that and checked my watchlist. I am ........... of course........... more than happy to restrict near term work on this policy to the talk page. And as I have said in multiple ways at multiple places, my goal is to make clear writing of current practice so newbies can instantly comprehend current practice. I am not seeking any changes to current practice whatsoever. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Both your edits to this page and your comment above contain a serious error: Notability is a guideline, not a policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein, my God you're right.... I was indeed assuming (knee jerk fashion) that WP:NOTABILITY was a by-God policy rather than a mereguideline. No matter though. @BusterD, thank you very much for your comments and 48 hr page protection. I just posted to your userspace and only saw this comment after I finished that and checked my watchlist. I am ........... of course........... more than happy to restrict near term work on this important guideline to the talk page. And as I have said in multiple ways at multiple places, my goal is simply clear writing of current practice so newbies can instantly comprehend current practice. I am not seeking any changes to current practice whatsoever. I suppose I should add.... by current practice I mean in theory, based on existing policies, guidelines, and approved templates. There are many examples of list article that do not conform to what I described as "current practice". This fact does not rebut our theoretical concept of stand alone list articles. If we can tune up our WP:P&G for stand-alone lists, in the future we can do an audit to improve stand-alone list articles that are lacking clear criteria, or purge them if beyond redemption. But that conversation is for the future. Right now, improved P&G clarity is the goal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO NewsAndEventsGuy's earlier change (possibly inadvertently) had a major change in it that had both a process issue (major change in a core guideline with no consensus or even discussion) and IMO was a bad major change. Their latest version of the change (which is the current version of the page) no longer has that major change in it, thus solving both of the big problems. So now it's just several minor wording changes which I have no strong opinion about either way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Except that it has the "policy" vs "guideline" error in it. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I fixed that one word error.North8000 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my goof and double-thanks for simply adding an improvement under WP:SOFIXIT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • North8000 covered it. Major changes usually require more discussion, and I don't think it was NewsAndEventsGuy's intent to make a major change. BusterD's advice is well taken, that if someone reverts a WP:BOLD change to a guideline, we should discuss instead of reverting back and forth. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Correct, I made a dumb mistake but I was saved from the eternal damnation of perpetual stupidity (tm) by User:North8000's kind assistance.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure.....happy to help.North8000 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Olympic Art Competition

Have we ever discussed whether Olympic Arts Competition medalists count as notable under the current guideline on Olympic medalists being notable?

Have we ever had a discussion on whether Olympic art competitors are notable?

The guidelines we have had and currently have related to Olympians all seem to have been formulated with the sports competitions in mind. The art competition was never seen as being the top art competition in the world.

In 1936 there were 15 categories to give medals in for the art competition. For 3 of these the judges gave no medals, and for another 3 they gave no gold medal. Has there ever been any sport competition where no medals were given? It appears that many of these articles were created on the assumption that Olympic art competition participation gave default notability, but what little I know suggests that was not the case.

It does not seem that there was some group selecting a British painting team, an American sculpting team, or a Swedish drama composition team. The very fact that the art created and presented had to in some way relate to sport meant that it was not just a competition to find the best artists period.

The articles we do have also often only say John Smith (1895-1955) was an American competitor in the 1936 Olympic painting competition. In this hypothetical case, you may look up John Smith and find that in fact he was an active artists for a few decades, who created a body of work, but none of that is in the current version of our article. I tried to post something about this issue on the Wikipedia arts project page back in February, no one responded. I may have scared them off by estimating the numbers of Olympic Arts competitors there were.

I really think we need to treat this group as distinct from the sports competitors in the Olympics, and either say they need to pass standard notability guidelines for artists, or if we do have a specific threshold for saying an Olympic art competitor is notable, we need to base it on the actual coverage of participants in this field of endeavor and have rules specific to it, not apply rules to people in an arts competition developed for a sports competition.

Since the Olympic arts competition last happened in 1948, I would guess most people do not even realize it existed. Which is probably why it has received so little mention (which might even be no mention at all) in discussions about the broader subject of what sub-set of Olympic competitors are notable.

Does anyone know. In the RfC last fall, did anyone even mention the Olympic Arts competitors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure my paragraph breaking above was done correctly. I realized that the original block text would have overwhelmed people. I was also pretty sure I should not sign each statement separately. I apologize if there was another way I should have broken up my statement for readability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Example

I think that it is entirely obvious that it depends on whether or not the person meets WP:NPERSON. Nobody is inherently notable. When any person's notability is challenged, the burden is on an editor who wishes to keep the article to provide evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources. On the other hand, an editor who wants to delete the article should provide evidence that a good faith competent search for significant coverage was unsuccessful. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC on notability of rural localities (e.g., Iranian ābādī)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Following on from various AFDs and other discussions in recent years (e.g., this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one), it can be seen that there is a difference as to whether, and to what degree, rural localities such as Iranian ābādī, Turkish Mahalle, and similar unincorporated communities/localities having people live in/about them should be presumed notable.

At AFD it is typically to see, on the one hand, people pointing out that we have many mass-produced stub-articles for locations for which the only source is a bare-mention in a statistical database or in a long list of place-names, and this being a violation of WP:NOT. On the other hand, you typically see people expressing the view that as well as being an encyclopaedia Wikipedia should be a gazetteer and should therefore include all such localities for which there is a source regardless of the depth of coverage.

Both sides appeal to WP:GEOLAND#1 as supporting their point of view, typically based on very different interpretations of the meaning of "populated, legally recognized places" and "census tracts". The WP:GEOLAND guide is therefore not resolving the issue. The availability of redirection per WP:NOPAGE also does not seem to resolve the issue.

It is therefore sensible to test the community consensus on this. I foresee four possible outcomes:

1. All places having anyone recorded living at or near them ever (e.g., in obituaries, run-of-the-mill news stories about people from them etc.) are presumed notable.
2. All places having anyone ever recorded living at or near them in an official document (e.g., official list of place-names, census) are presumed notable, all others should be evaluated individually against WP:GNG.
3. All populated places having ever had a degree of self-governance conferred through a process of law (e.g., incorporated/chartered towns and cities) are presumed notable, all others should be evaluated individually against WP:GNG.
4. Populated locations have no presumption of notability, and must be evaluated individually against WP:GNG.

FOARP (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey regarding notability of rural localities

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (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.
FOARP, I think this discussion is needed, but not here, and not in this format. It needs to be proposed as a modification to NGEO, either at the village pump or at NGEO. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I think FOARP brings up a very good point that assuming that "legal incorporation" is an easily findable worldwide standard has lots of draw backs. I think this standard also becomes a bit presentist. Now probably GNG will be a bit presentist, it is going to be a little hard to get detailed sources on all the lowest level populated areas in the Incan Empire as compared to getting such on things that exist now, but at some point we are limited by sources, and as much as we may wish we could have as detailed articles on places in the Incan Empire as places in modern Florida, it just is not doable. However if we cannot find GNG level sources on things, it is very hard to argue we should have articles on things at all. This is clearly something we need to come up with clearer rules on, but I am not sure exactly where. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, we can have information on things without needing to have articles on things. Covering humanity's available published knowledge on the villages of the Incan Empire can be done without needing to create a tiny stand-alone article on each; it is probably better to just have a list article with some maps or something, and that would be fully sufficient. Just because some settlements get a stand-alone article doesn't mean every settlement needs to get one, especially where all we know about a settlement may be that it existed and had a name, and that's it. We can sufficiently present that information in a list article covering the set, rather than as an individual article on each such village. --Jayron32 01:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, and I would add that the "completionist" approach that results in these microstubs is ultimately not compatible with NOTDIRECTORY. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This suggests that maybe you think that we should deliberately avoid listing something out of every class of things that we list, in order to be properly selective? That is a bad misreading of NOTDIRECTORY. If everything in some class meets our notability standards, then we should list everything. Doing so is not in any way indiscriminate. What is indiscriminate, instead, is listing a haphazard subset of things in a class that we cannot possibly list all of, without standards for what to include and what not to include. We cannot and should not include all stars, for instance, but we can and should list all planets in our solar system. We cannot list all candidates for public office in the US, but we can list all elected members of the US congress, and should. Etc. Completionism can be a problem (witness the bad geostubs), but pointless avoidance of completionism is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
If they meet notability standards then of course they can have articles, what I'm talking about is the drive to have an article on every item in some set regardless of whether it is notable. Like, a hypothetical effort to have standalones on every List A cricketer ever. JoelleJay (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
If we have notability standards that declare that every List A cricketer is notable, then it makes sense to try to make our coverage fit those standards rather than cover a haphazard subset. The problem there is not the completism, it's the bad choice of notability standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
We have a perfectly workable notability standard for stand alone articles that works all the time and never doesn't work. The standard is "Can I find enough well-written, reliable source text about this topic to fill out a reasonable encyclopedia article." If you can't find enough source texts to make a reasonably comprehensive and well-written article, don't create the article. If you can find such source texts, feel free to. It doesn't really matter what arbitrary set of categories an article fits in; there's no inherent need to have a "complete set" of any arbitrary categorization, whether it is List A cricketers, Indian settlements, publicly traded companies, or whatever. All that we should care about is whether or not a specific subject has enough source texts for us to use to research and write a decent article. --Jayron32 12:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Drafting a new rail station SNG RFC

After the current RFC recieves what should be a snow close of "there is no such thing as inherent notability" with probably no additional finding possible, I propose that we hammer out a rail station SNG to propose. My first attempt will be:

"Active rail stations with enclosed buildings and scheduled service on active heavy rail lines, and stations with an unusual degree of prominence or significance are usually presumed to be notable although even those are sometimes better covered within larger scale articles. Other stations should either establish notability via GNG type sourcing or else be covered in larger scale articles."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I meant an SNG provision, probably added to wp:NGEO North8000 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the "middle" on this, so let me pose a "devils advocate" question on this,. A zillion other topics have SNGs.....why not this one? North8000 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In part because of WP:CREEP; I don't see any benefit from adding this SNG. In addition I find that SNG's that presume notability without demonstrated coverage cause issues and result in the mass creation of articles without authorization. BilledMammal (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
There is also WP:GEOFEAT with is an established guideline, and railway stations would also fit in the "Artificial features related to infrastructure" section. If there is some disagreement then a quick RfC could be made. Jumpytoo Talk 02:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't suppose that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a more valid answer here than anywhere else ... because if so, your question begs another: why this one? That being said, though, my reasons for turning against SNGs are simple -- they have long since ceased to be predictors of presumptive notability in favor of ironclad defenses of "inherent" notability, they provoke unending arguments, and they're all too often abused by literalist editors riding hobbyhorses.

The downfall of NSPORTS, for instance, didn't come at the hands of sports haters. It came from the many, many editors appalled at the fact (for instance) that one bio in seven on Wikipedia was of soccer players, that there were editors happily churning out thousands of sub-stubs with no intent of ever developing them into viable articles, and that their uniform reaction to the protests were variations on "Tough shit!" and dogged combat in defense of their self-declared turf.

So ... I'll ask this question: what, precisely, do you think a NTRAINSTATION will achieve that relying on the GNG will not? Ravenswing 02:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Responding to some questions and then expanding. My reason for starting this is...... The current RFC will confirm that "inherent notability" does not exist and nothing else specific is likely to come out of it. So then what's next? We set one silly term ( "inherent notability") that Wikipedia doesn't use aside, and we still have the status quo of people generating thousands of content-free permastub train station articles, and people saying that practice is to "always keep" those, and misusing the train stations part of the "common outcomes" essay to bolster that. And we still have the conflict between the intention of GNG (which says that notability must be established) and wp:before which says that you need to "prove a negative" to use the only practical way (AFD, even if only to make a merge decision) to enforce that. (the alternative of fighting through 10,000 merge debates dominated by permastub fans isn't viable) I started this section with several things in mind. One is to make this whole conversation continue in some viable manner after the close which will be too limited to guide this somewhere. Second, with an SNG being a sort of compromise to mutually move foreward on, and an accepted practice in Wikipedia that could allow us to move forward. Third, although one can view SNG's as only a "loosening" mechanism (a defaco bypass of GNG) they can also act as a "tightening" effect by tending to weigh against articles which fail the SNG criteria and such might help guide the process.

Prompted by this discussion I ended up closely reading the WP:STATION essay and I think that it provides pretty good guidance for this whole situation. So here's a revised draft of an idea / proposal (with the date added to avoid launching new battle to change the essay):

"The approach to having or not having separate articles on train stations should generally follow the recommendations at the July 17th 2022 version of WP:STATION. But in no case should such be construed as overriding any Wikipedia notability guidelines"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The RFC has plumped pretty firmly in favour of an option that specifically says that train stations "must be evaluated individually against WP:GNG and/or subject-specific notability guidelines", meaning that either WP:GNG or another existing SNG (e.g., WP:NGEO, which also requires basically that WP:GNG should be applied to structures such as train stations). Happy with anything that makes WP:GNG its starting point and does not assume/presume/whatever notability for train stations based simply on their presence on a list. WP:STATION appears to be a essay along those lines and that's fine by me. FOARP (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikimania starts Thursday

You can still register for Wikimania. Attendance is free. This (mostly) virtual event will use a virtual event website called pheedloop.com This session may interest some of you: wikimania:2022:Submissions/Wikipedia in French has deleted Pages for Deletion: Why, How, What impacts. I hope to see some of you there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY has an RFC

WP:NOTDIRECTORY has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I plan to submit this was a malformed RfC since the creator did not include in the question even one bit of the context about the editing dispute or ongoing duplicate discussion, making it appear as a simple stand alone question. Huggums537 (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
For the purposes of avoiding confusion, and transparency, I feel obligated to disclose that I did in fact actually support the RfC, and my only objection to it was the way it was formed because it didn't disclose context about the editing dispute over contentious policy. Huggums537 (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

GNG plural

The GNG requires notability-establishing sources, in the plural. Does that mean each article needs two of more notability-establishing sources to prove its topic notable? Apologies for the trivial question (trying to write accurate editor help). HLHJ (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the subject should have at least two independent secondary reliable sources that each provide SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
We purposely don't give a number for how many sources as it is based on what significant coverage there is in sources provided. In most cases you need multiple sources, but the GNG can hypothetically be met by one good RS that covers the topic in depth. Masem (t) 12:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hypothetically, one really detailed, super long source would satisfy GNG, but in practice, there are exactly zero entities in the world where only one highly detailed super-long source exists, and absolutely nothing else. If there were a 1000 page, scrupulously researched and well respected biography of a person, for example, there's always something else out there as well. For most of the new articles yet to be added to Wikipedia, there are going to need to be multiple sources. You can treat it as a requirement in the sense that the alternate condition doesn't exist. --Jayron32 12:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that the concept of one source meeting GNG is entirely hypothetical. The field of ethnohistory and anthropology is full of research about individuals who may not be notable on their own. Michael Lambert's article "How Grandma Kate Lost Her Cherokee Blood and What This Says about Race, Blood, and Belonging in Indian Country" (2019) details the descendants of Keziah Vann and their struggle for recognition. Much of this type of work is done using primary source material or interviews with the subject or subject's family. That said, the question becomes whether a subject should be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. - Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we have to keep in mind that the GNG is a presumption of notability. If I start an article using a single high quality independent source that has deep coverage, it is likely other sources do exist and that source serves as the presumption if nitability for supporting a standalone article. Masem (t) 16:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I view WP:ANYBIO #3 as sufficient as a single source. If the bigwigs think somebody is notable, then we should have an article on them even if that is our only source. But for normal news sources we want to have 2-3 (exactly how many depends on the quality and extent of the coverage). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
It needs two or more, that's correct. But "multiple" doesn't usually mean two, so I use at least three. Thinker78 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Multiple means more than one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I use the dictionary definition of more than two,[1] although you are also right. Thinker78 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Like most things in Wikipedia, multiple factors are considered. With all else being average, I think 2 GNG-suitable references are required. When "all else" looks very strong, then I think one usually does it. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Precisely this. Also, one independent reference with very deep coverage, combined with a couple other independent references with usable but "shallower" coverage, can offer a better GNG "pass" than two or three independent references offering mid-level (more than usable but less than deep) coverage.
Note that "multiple" occurs only in the phrase There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected, which makes it pretty clear that GAMING the number of sources is not to encouraged by the WP:GNG text itself. 18:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. And in an even broader context, Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works, this will be a bit less stringent for a highly enclyclopedic subject where it's unlikely that the editor has maxed-out the reference search (e.g. a species of salamander in the Amazon) than the reverse, where it looks like a business person has paid a wiki-savvy editor to create an article on himself. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, that's the real underlying issue no one talks about for some reason, because it makes us feel a bit icky: notability is really about being a gatekeeper to keep Wikipedia from being used as a means of promotion; Amazon salamanders don't stand to financially benefit from increased promotion, so no one really cares about a sub-stub article referenced to a single paper in a minor journal somewhere, nor should they. This is very different from some "up and coming" musician who has a clueless publicist trying to get them an article on Wikipedia to increase their internet presence. We have limited resources to enforce all of our policies and guidelines, so we need to worry about the stuff that abuses Wikipedia's high-profile nature for personal gain, and not worry so much about stuff that isn't harming anything. --Jayron32 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Jayron32, I don't think that there is anything icky at all about trying to prevent Wikipedia from being used as a venue to promote "up and coming" anything. When you mention "Amazon salamaders", I assume that you are referring to South American amphibians that superficially resemble lizards, as opposed to commercial restaurant high temperature grilling appliances sold through a website owned by Jeff Bezos. To me, "multiple" means two or more, but if two is all we have, they both ought to be outstanding and both provide in-depth coverage, entirely independent of each other. In other than exceptional cases, there should be at least three and preferably more excellent sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a certain ethos that we should blindly apply all of our policies and guidelines dispassionately to every article equally; and there are people who get very angry if you say "yea, this doesn't meet the GNG all that well, but it's harmless, so leave it". And yet, that's probably what we do in some cases. --Jayron32 13:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I chose more extreme examples to illustrate, by my point was (as made at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works) is that the system also factors in "degree of enclyclopedicness" when deciding how tough to be on the sourcing requirements. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all; I have been following this, and as the discussion seems to have died down now I'll thank you all at once. From this and the "multiple sources are generally expected" I conclude that this is probably not an issue I should be going into in messaging aimed at new editors. When editors learn to find one notability-establishing source, they learn how to find any number of them, and for a notable topic, they probably spontaneously will. So I'll leave it vague and link to policy. HLHJ (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple

Basketball SNG RFC

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposed amendment to basketball guideline Levivich 17:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles only" list criterion doesn't establish notability

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.

Self close by original poster. The result of this discussion was no consensus for the change I made to the guidance. Status quo was restored. Huggums537 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


There has been an ongoing discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Should "List of people from place" require blue links? noting that lists saying they are "notable" with the meaning of "articles only" are highly incorrect in more ways than one. Those who have participated in the discussion so far were: @Hike395, @Onel5969, @Blueboar, @NewsAndEventsGuy, and @Shooterwalker. I made this edit in line with what I think is the sentiment there. However, Butwhatdoiknow reverted, and restored the text without giving any substantive reason for challenging per WP:PGBOLD other than simply restoring the text without the link. This is not a substantive objection to my reason for removal, and does nothing but restore the text while still not addressing or challenging the issue of why it was removed, (i.e. the text is not supported by policy or guidance no matter if it is linked or not). I am removing the text again with a note to seek discussion per WP:POLCON for resolution since the matter is under discussion in two places now, and seems to have somewhat of a consensus in one of them. Huggums537 (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Should "List of people from place" require blue links? only covered ~130 list articles of the form List of people from place XYZ, and was not a general discussion about allowing "only blue links" as an additional criteria to any list article. We can certainly discuss whether "only blue links" is an allowed extra criterion somewhere (maybe at WT:SALAT? or WT:WikiProject Lists?). The phrase that Butwhatdoiknow restored after your deletion said that "only blue links" is an allowed criterion, not that it is required for notability. As far as I understand, that is supported by previous consensus. We should have a discussion to whether to remove it. — hike395 (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you mean to say it "had" consensus. Now that it has been challenged, and removed with substantial arguments for removal, it no longer has consensus, and the WP:ONUS is on anyone who wants it restored to provide the WP:BURDEN of evidence for having it in. Also, as I mentioned earlier POLCON means that we desire to have no conflicts in guidance so saying this only applies here or there is not consistent with POLCON. Lastly, the removed text does not say "only blue links" is an allowed criterion (blue links could be anything like external links or redirects), it says, "only Wikipedia articles" is an allowed criterion, but again, this is not supported by the link in the sentence or any other policy or guideline, and in fact goes against the P&G I mentioned in the linked discussion above. Huggums537 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
That discussion shows a no consensus to change at it current state, so the onus is on those seeking the change
And while notability s not meant go be universally used to restrict list items, it can be selected by editors to be a list criteria, which 100% makes sense in a case like "list of people from X" where any tom dick or harry could be added without showing the person notable.
"Blue links" in Wikipedia terms means a standalone article in mainspace...not ELs, not links to project pages. That nearly always means the articke meets thebstandalonr article requirements and meets notability guidelines, but has some exceptions for redirects. Masem (t) 02:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
What Masem said. In some articles, it makes sense for the criteria to limit to Wikipedia articles only, other with red links and a source. This is per article, not wikiwide. I reverted the policy page to the old policy. This is already handled just fine at the article level by editors, it doesn't require an exception or addition to policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Masem that as it regards policy and guideline discussions, onus is always on those seeking any change in prior consensus. Neither WP:ONUS nor WP:BURDEN apply here as linked. New consensus not emerging, status quo is maintained. BusterD (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, that isn't what Masem said. Masem said notability can be selected by editors to be a list criteria, and I agree with that, but that is not the same thing as a "Wikipedia articles only" list, which I think is not encyclopedic, and falls afoul of policy and guidance per my arguments in the linked discussion. We can't rely on Wikipedia articles to be notable per WP:CIRCULAR, and common sense tells us many of our articles simply are not reliable as being notable. The deletion of articles due to being not notable is undeniable evidence of this. Also, all the links in a Wikipedia "articles only" list are a massive WP:SELFREF to the exclusion of all other references since any other references are not allowed in a list with such a criteria. Seems like a massive policy violation to me. A notable list seems perfectly fine and acceptable, but an "articles only" list seems like it should be a big no-no and I think most editors don't know the difference, but it should be made clear. Huggums537 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Wp has its own definition of notability we all discussions related to "notable" are built on. You conflating real world notability with our version. (though it would be best we be clear we speak of the wiki version). To add, editors can be free to select WP-notable only as a list criterion, meaning a standalone article meeting the gng must exiat before addition, or another option is showing thr sourcing that something is real world notabke via citations as to mix in unlinked or red linked terns with blue linked ones. Nothing circlular is going on Masem (t) 09:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not conflating anything. I am speaking of Wiki notability. You are 100% absolutely wrong that editors can be free to select WP-notable only as a list criterion, meaning a standalone article meeting the gng must exiat before addition, or another option is showing thr sourcing that something is real world notabke via citations as to mix in unlinked or red linked terns with blue linked ones. You need to go back and read WP:CSC so you will see the red links are not offered as a separate and totally different options, but they are actually allowed as being acceptable in these notable only lists as notable entries themselves, and I would add these redlinks are being referred to in the Wiki notable sense as opposed to "real world" notable you suggested in the quote above so I would say it is you conflating the two not myself. Huggums537 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
CSC is by no means the only possible list selection criteria, just the most common. That one common form includes red links does not invalidate what WP:N says with list inclusion. I would consider that a courtesy link from here to CSC woyld help but there is zero contradiction since neither page proposes it is the authorative list allowance and no other options for list criteria can be considered. Masem (t) 21:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This whole discussion seems to be premised on a misreading of the line in question, editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. The "or" does not mean that we are equating independent notability with the existence of an article. It means that we may choose to limit lists to independently notable items (one common method for limiting lists, which when handled in this way tends to mean that unlinked items can be included but must be referenced to show notability and relevance to the list) or, instead, we may choose to limit lists to those with Wikipedia articles (a different method for limiting lists in which even demonstrably notable items cannot be included until their article exists). So yes, as the subject of this discussion states, "lists don't establish notability". Of course they don't. That's a total nonsequitur that has nothing to do with the meaning of this line. The line is not trying to make lists establish notability. It is providing editors with some local choice over the mechanism for list membership control. Different lists are likely to have different needs for how strictly they should be controlled and this flexibility is a good thing. Note that the line *also* allows editors to choose *not* to limit lists in either of these ways. So reducing the choices for how lists could be controlled would not do anything to prevent wide-open uncontrolled lists.
Rather than clarifying the meaning of notability, removal of the "or those with Wikipedia articles" clause would instead prevent editors from tightly controlling list membership. Its removal could open the door to uncontrolled expansion of certain lists. An example is List of people by Erdős number where it is easy to find sourcing for thousands more names (at the level of published reliable sources documenting the Erdős numbers of certain mathematicians) but where, to keep the list under control, local consensus has been to keep only the bluelinked names, even when other names might be of people we believe to be notable. (See the long history of this list and of the many reverted additions of non-linked names to it, including some such as Special:Diff/934518752 where the reverted addition is of someone likely to be notable but not bluelinked.) This is a much easier line to maintain than trying to determine notability in individual cases. Removing the possibility for bluelink-only lists would be a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree lists don't establish notability. However, the title is a bad representation of my point. Something more to the point would be that Wikipedia articles can't be relied upon for notability as I stated above. I think I might modify the title for clarity. I think if you followed actual guidance of a notable list as opposed to a very damaging "articles only" approach, you would be able to maintain the list just fine. This would entail taking measures such as allowing only notable entries which would include Wikipedia articles, and notable red links, text entries and redirects, but these would only be allowed if references were provided to establish notability. Such a list could be maintained almost exactly the way it is now since most non desirable redlinks and text entries could still be easily and immediately removed because you know people who add these kinds of entries are not likely to provide any supporting references, and if they do, then the entry might belong anyway. It's a heck of a lot better than using a bad criteria, and stating the contradictory lie on the talk page that the list meets the notability criteria (it doesn't since it doesn't allow anything notable such as red links or redirects except only Wikipedia articles) Huggums537 (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, your response makes clear (for instance by calling them "very damaging" without evidence of damage) that you want to outlaw bluelink-only lists. I strongly oppose this position. Bluelink-only lists are easier for editors to maintain (because the inclusion criterion is immediately visible), lead to less disagreement (because the inclusion criterion is not opinion-based), and can be more helpful for readers (because they get links to articles to read about list members rather than having to pick them out from a sea of random and often-meaningless names).
Occasionally I run across unmaintained lists with many unsourced unlinked entries and trim them. When I do so, I typically trim to names that are either bluelinked or sourced, the other possibility that this sentence allows. But for lists that I'm likely to continue coming back to, editing and maintaining, I strongly prefer the bluelink-only format. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, well if people can't glean that the contradiction being propagated is damaging due to the conflict, or that many blue-linked only lists suffer damage due to lack of being complete just for the sake of being "easier for editors to maintain" when a more complete list could still be achieved without giving up too much ease of maintenance, would have criteria just as visible, would be guidance based, and more helpful for readers because it also would not contain meaningless names, but would have more relevant material. I agree with trimming many unsourced unlinked entries, and I also agree to trim to names that are either bluelinked or sourced, but a bluelink-only format is also damaging in the massive restriction to Wikipedia only references to the exclusion of all others. Such a restriction is far too limiting, and is really a policy violation of WP:CIRCULAR which says not to use Wikipedia articles as sources. If the entire list references Wikipedia articles to the exclusion of all other references, then it is a massive CIRCULAR WP:SELF reference. Huggums537 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Editors are absolutely free to, by consensus, chose to limit lists to only WP-notable topics (blue linked or having a stand alone article). They are also free to opt for real world notability, which includes blue links and reasonably sourced unlinked topic. The only expectation with list selections that WP:V is met somehow...a blue linked article is expected to have the sourcing, an unlinked entry must be directly sourced. on Masem (t) 21:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree editors are free to limit lists to only WP-notable topics, but limiting lists to WP-notable topics does not mean "blue linked or having a stand alone article". WP:CSC says, Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. This doesn't mean "has the article". It means "qualifies for". Otherwise, the redlinks could not be allowed later in the paragraph since they would not meet the notability criteria for their own article, [but do not "have the article"]. Huggums537 (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
what the CSC says and what NLIST says are two different sets of possible criteria for list selection, neither which contradicts the other as neither attempt to establish themselves as the only means to develop list selection criteria. That NList offers "requires stabdalone articles" while CSC offers "can meet the WP:N" criteria are just two possible list criteria. Masem (t) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I support Rhododendrites' rephrasing, I think it captures the current practice. — hike395 (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The rephrasing might capture current practice, but it simply isn't the truth. That is, limiting to those that have articles is a way of settling notability (by deferring the debate over notability to the stand-alone articles, and assuming something is notable as long as it has an article); it's not an unrelated option. An "articles only" list can never be notability compliant since it doesn't allow notable redlinks or any other notable references outside of unreliable Wikipedia ones. Sure, in practice all example lists are limited to notable entries, except they aren't truly notable because they really just include articles only. The reason the policy doesn't express it even though it is typical is because it is actually outrageous when you write it out as law, and it really is outrageous as a practice when you consider the fact that what you said is in fact true that the reality is it's extremely uncommon for someone to do the work of finding enough sources to show notability and not bother to take a couple minutes to start a stub with those sources so they are not likely to bother with adding redlinks if they are required to add them with sources as it is actually written in the guidance. We have a major disconnect with what is written versus actual practice, and I am convinced that most editors are just afraid the guidance won't work because they can't see a way to make it work for them plus they have been hanging on to this old way of doing things for so long. I'm sure this articles only thing has been around for a while, but it is time to try something new for a change. Huggums537 (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I've read this a couple times and see that you say you disagree, but can't follow why. Lists that contain only Wikipedia articles should ideally still contain references, but for verification purposes related to the inclusion criteria, not related to notability. If everything has an article, notability is settled at the article level (i.e. presume it's notable until it's deleted/redirected). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, well if you don't follow why. I will explain more simply. This proposal suggests that merely having a Wikipedia article automatically makes it independently notable, but many articles exist (and have existed for years in some cases) that simply are not notable. We can't rely on Wikipedia articles for notability because something as arbitrary as consensus can decide if an article is notable or not. I would trust a well sourced redlink or text link entry before I would a Wikipedia article. Have you ever actually seen some of these blue link entries they are calling "notable"? Huggums537 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
There are well established ways to challenge and eventually remove articles on non-notable topics. You could use them instead of disrupting list maintenance to make a point. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I just saw some particularly good examples by @Donald Albury, and @Levivich on another talk page. One was a stub with misinformation that sat around for 10 years: User:Donald Albury/The rescue of a sub-stub biography, and the other was: There are 1,773 Category:All unreferenced BLPs, and why we're not batch-moving them to draftspace, I don't know. There are another >100,000 Category:All articles lacking sources and >430,000 Category:All articles needing additional references. Huggums537 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
please see WP:DEADLINE. we know there are likely thousands of stubs and articles with bad information, which we will ultimately get to. but that has nothing to do with you apparent concerns on list inclusion. Masem (t) 23:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you will get to them, and maybe not. Consensus decided (or possibly could decide) otherwise. Also, we aren't just talking about "bad information". We are talking about unsourced or poorly sourced articles that have everything to do with my concerns. Huggums537 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If the articles linked dont met notability, AFD them. If they meet notability but dont demonstrate sourcing for the list topic, remove them from the list. We do assume that editors are adding articles to lists with knowledge they are fully notable. But we also assume that editors ahave added sources when they include redlinks on lists as well. These can have the same problem, particularly older lists. These are all part of the"no deadline" approach to getting content right. Masem (t) 22:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
In the above referenced quote there was a discussion that led to no consensus for batch moving out of mainspace so just assuming articles are notable, and just assuming AfD, or otherwise removing them is just as arbitrary as I mentioned earlier because consensus. Huggums537 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
that merely having a Wikipedia article automatically makes it independently notable - No, as I said more than once, it assumes notability and defers to the stand-alone article. That is, if it's notable or not is a case made at the stand-alone article. For the purpose of a list, we can just link to it and assume it's notable (and if it's deleted, then remove the link and assume it's not notable). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
But, this is doing far more than just making the false assumption all articles are notable, and if we are going to defer to the stand alone article, then why make any default assumptions of notability that could just easily later be changed at an article level anyway? That is actually really silly when you think about it. It also basically suggests that the only way to show an entry is notable is by having an article, but this is simply not true. Huggums537 (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
honestly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. yes, there a host of problems that do exist because of WPs size of having standalone article that arent notabke, that have false info, etc. and that are being included in lists. when they are discovered they should be fixed, but this.has nothing to do with the list criteria issue. it is an orthogonal, not concurrent, problem Masem (t) 01:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This is getting ridiculous. Everyone seems to understand, and is more or less on the same page, except Huggums537. We have talked ourselves into a circle here, and I don't see how explaining yet more is going to make a difference. No amount of explaining has worked, no amount of consensus is going to be enough. Policy is based on practice, not the other way around, and it would seem the practice has been explained sufficiently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
If you all say so. I see my arguments are not gaining much traction. I guess I'm done here. If other editors want to have a say then let them. Huggums537 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I will just self close the discussion as no consensus for my change. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2022 (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.

WP:GNG in sports articles deletion nominations

I wanted to ask a question about WP:GNG and how it's used in sports article deletion nominations (WP:AfD or WP:PROD). I recently PRODed the article Eszter Hortobagyi which was later removed and the article, expanded. She was 20th place in Modern pentathlon at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's, which appears to fail WP:NOLYMPICS. Now, the trouble here is how WP:GNG applies. You see, there are mentions of her in multiple sources, as you can see in the article, so this might appear to pass GNG. Here comes the problem: the first point in GNG (the "Presumed" one). Just because a few newspapers (or perhaps more than just that) cover her life and/or career, doesn't mean she's notable enough to have her own article. Presumably, we'd then use something like WP:NOLYMPICS and/or WP:NSPORTS to determine whether she deserves her own article.

Now I want to give a hypothetical example: let's say we end up determining she isn't notable enough. Wouldn't she then fail the first point of GNG? (GNG also states "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.") What would happen then? Follow Wikipedia guidelines, or keep the article? NytharT.C 07:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

NSPORTS and most other SNG are mrant as alternatives to presumed notability if the GNG hasn't been met. She clearly fails the relevant NSPORT guidance, so if notability is then not shown by the GNG, then deletion should be the answer, though at this point it is going to be subjective if the current coverage is not good enough for thebGNG Masem (t) 09:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
What if a TikToker one day had three news articles at CNN, NBC, and CBS. Do they pass WP:GNG then? NytharT.C 10:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
What if I grew wings and could fly? More seriously, see WP:BLP1E> Spartaz Humbug! 10:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
But if an athlete's career wasn't notable, why would WP:GNG apply? Isn't that like a TikToker at first receiving passing mentions in sources (comparable to database sources of an Olympic athlete at 20th place) and then the TikToker posting a special video for which they receive millions of likes and, more importantly, those 3 news articles (comparable to sources which focus on other parts of an Olympian's life)? Sometimes editors might revert my PRODs or vote Keep on AfD's because of a single source about an Olympian's life (despite them having no particularly notable wins in their careers). Is this like 0.5 in terms of career, plus 0.5 in terms of notability, 1, so that passes? NytharT.C 11:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
It would be more up to how consensus sees it as there are no harm fast rules. Notability does look for enduring coverage (BLP1E an extension of that\) so a person that might have a couple non enduring coverage events would be inappropriate. Masem (t) 11:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
NSPORT is based on and subsidiary to GNG, which is a publicity-based notability standard. That means that an athlete with lots of publicity but not much athletic achievement can be notable, and an accomplished athlete without publicity can be non-notable. If you want a notability standard based on achievement rather than publicity, you need to move away from GNG, but the community has shown little taste in doing so recently. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If anything falls into the grey area, where it may or may not be notable per our policies and guidelines, the issue can ultimately be decided by consensus at AfD. There would be no need for such discussion fora if everything was black or white. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Re Presumably, we'd then use something like WP:NOLYMPICS and/or WP:NSPORTS to determine whether she deserves her own article. No. For GNG-based notability criteria such as these, the determination is made using GNG. If she has in-depth reliable sourcing, she passes, regardless of her sporting performance. If she does not have the sourcing, she does not pass, regardless of her sporting performance. These sporting criteria are used as a heuristic to predict the existence of sourcing; they are not a higher bar that athletes in these sports must pass even when the sourcing exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

So, from what I'm seeing here, if someone's career alone is not notable, and their mentions in sources alone is not notable, when combined, they become notable? Not notable + not notable = notable? I get that editors discuss things at AfD, but I'm referring to guidelines. NytharT.C 19:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything in what anyone has said here that remotely implies what you said in you first two sentences. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Eszter Hortobagyi's career isn't notable; 20th place at the Olympics doesn't appear to pass notability guidelines. What's left is source coverage. And that source coverage alone (see her article or look her up in a search engine) doesn't appear notable enough, alone. Unless I'm mistaken here (on my second point), if she passes GNG for only a few online articles (despite her career being not notable), how many other articles can exist on Wikipedia where the subject has accomplished something of minor significance but has an article because of a few minor online sources? What does GNG accomplish in this situation? It's confusing.
Also, have a look at Ron Chiodi and Peter Thorndike's edit histories, two articles I PRODed. One ranked 31 and the other 27 at the Olympics. My PRODs were reverted by the same user, who included links to old newspapers in their edit summaries, calling them "SIGCOV". If this is what SIGCOV/GNG looks like, what DON'T we include in Wikipedia? Apparently, someone with very minor sources gets an article? I've heard of Inclusionism but this appears overdone. NytharT.C 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Those were contested WP:PRODs, not articles kept by discussion at WP:AFD. The thing to do if you still think the articles should be deleted is to start a deletion discussion, which will determine consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
You might have missed the point, but I think you're starting to see the problem here. Let me elaborate:
Using GNG there could be, who knows, millions of useless articles, but CONSENSUS then determines whether or not they are kept. Some are deleted, and some are kept. But why are they deleted and/or kept? Aren't guidelines normally cited in deletion discussions (AfD, for example), instead of just WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Many discussions at AfD receive as little as 2-3 votes, so consensus at AfD doesn't currently seem to be at its best levels. If you nominated an article for deletion in, say, 2018, and it's kept, then nominate it again in 2020 (assuming no major change occurred to the article), the result of the discussion could potentially result in delete. If it's determined by consensus rather than GNG or some other guideline, wouldn't the voters then cite a guideline to justify their vote? Does GNG have more weight than a vote or is it the other way around?
Again, let's say the subject of an article fails notability guidelines such as WP:SNG but passes GNG, and the article is taken to AfD. What's the point in voting delete or keep if you'd then have to cite the guideline you're using when, as I said before, that article failed SNG and apparently GNG isn't as important as consensus, but wait, what guideline would you cite then? Are you seeing my point? NytharT.C 21:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
From my experiences at AfD, one issue seems to be that, compared to editors in other areas, some sports editors have a much lower standard for what constitutes SIGCOV and a very idiosyncratic take on what is "independent" and "primary".
The sources added to Hortobagyi most definitely do not add up to GNG. The SMH source is the only independent RS with nontrivial coverage, and at 11ish sentences of independent commentary is not nearly enough for a neutral, comprehensive biography. The clipping claimed to be SIGCOV for Chiodi is both local and only covers his high school results, and so fails YOUNGATH and should not be considered for GNG. The Thorndike one is better in that it's covering his professional career, but is still hyper-local. I might be in the minority, but in my opinion subjects that only a small, geographically-constrained population of people has heard of/is interested in are just not notable enough for a standalone profile in a global encyclopedia, and a lot of our systemic bias concerns would be resolved if we had much stronger inclusion thresholds. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting conversation, thanks. NytharT.C 07:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SUSTAINED and content within articles.

Strictly speaking, this page says at the top that it is only for whether we have an article on a topic, not for whether we include something within an article. But many parts of it are, practically speaking, used to determine what to include in articles, and I think most editors would agree they are useful in that regard. WP:SUSTAINED is to me the most obvious example of this - clearly sustained coverage is not necessary for everything in articles (sometimes something that just happened, like a death, is so unambiguously significant that we cannot avoid reflecting it immediately, and in other cases coverage is so high-quality or clear as to some aspect's importance that sustained coverage is unnecessary.) But it is at least a useful way of demonstrating that something is WP:DUE for inclusion in an article or, conversely, raising an objection that something may be undue; if something has sustained coverage, that's a strong argument for inclusion, and if it doesn't then that's usually at least worth raising and considering. WP:SUSTAINED is frequently cited in this way and I don't think many people would argue that that should stop. That being the case, should we spin WP:SUSTAINED off elsewhere? Point the redirect at something else? (And is there something else that would also apply to content within articles?) --Aquillion (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that re-pointing the redirect is a good idea (some advantages; some disadvantages), but I agree with you that something that gets mentioned regularly/over time is less likely to be a WP:MINORASPECT than something that gets mentioned once. Perhaps that paragraph of the NPOV policy is a good place to add this insight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Sustained coverage is good attribute to give weight to in due/undue inclusion/exclusion decisions which inevitably will also consider other factors. (Wikipedia:How editing decisions are made) It would be good to say that and to discuss sustained coverage and the metrics of it. Maybe just adding a side note to it in this guideline would be a way to do that, or pointing it to a new essay that says that. But one likely pitfall would be to start putting in "this is what should happen based (only) on the sustained coverage aspect" type wording and we already have too much of that type of wording which ignores the reality that decisions are usually made based on weighing multipleconsiderations.North8000 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Concepts which are fall under lexical gaps and notability

If some concept is notable in multiple other languages but there was no common single word for this concept in English, Can we create an article for this concept in English Wikipedia?

In some cases, there are proposed words such as nibling or gendersex.

Niece and nephew article is created in the English Wikipedia but my proposal to create sex or gender has failed. Talk:Sex and gender distinction#Splitting proposal. Endosex, which is an antonym of intersex, was created.

In some cases, new words were proposed in English and there are dozens to hundreds scholarly articles about the new words in English. Current notability guidelines don't mention about these situations. How can we set borderlines in these cases? Sharouser (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary box

If an article currently cites:

☒N a source that can't single-handedly prove notability

but the real world has:

checkY multiple non-trivial newspaper reports, some magazine articles, and a few pages in a book

then the subject is notable.

This page tends to be a bit of an oblong gray blur, which does not encourage people to read it. I thought I'd break it up visually and emphasize some oft-misunderstood points by adding a box to the side of Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. You can see the state of the box when Masem removed it.

I think it should be included. Masem first told @Andrevan not to edit without permission (Andrevan added the word non-trivial, which I think was a clear improvement) then removed everything, saying there are "some issues".

Now, I know that determining whether we want a separate article for a subject depends on a lot of factors, including editors' preferences. But overall, speaking of the general case, I thought this was a pretty fair summary of the section it was in, and brings the point of the section home a little clearer. Does anyone think this is factually wrong (e.g., that a subject isn't notable until you've typed up the citations for all of those real-world sources)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not against the box, but given how sensitive some editors are to how WP:N is applied (even as a guideline) any major changes should get consensus to be added. (My own experience in trying to explain SNGs for ecample). Masem (t) 19:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I tend to think that oversimplified explainers belong in essay space, not as part of the actual policy. People will take them as defining policy, rather than as giving simplified examples, and that will distort what we want the policy to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you name some realistic scenarios in which this "oversimiplified" statement isn't true? Can you name a few obviously non-notable subjects that have received coverage in "multiple non-trivial newspaper reports, some magazine articles, and a few pages in a book"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
It is easy to misinterpret the box as requiring "multiple non-trivial newspaper reports, some magazine articles, and a few pages in a book" before someone should count as notable, or as stating that it is never possible for a single source to be enough for notability, both of which are definitely untrue. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Only echoing that because of how many new editors are pointed to WP:N without understanding the intent of P&G, that's my concern that any wording added (without careful review) will be taken for the letter of the law, and cause more problems down the road. I don't think the intent of the box was wrong, but needs more review before adding. Masem (t) 14:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, then, Masem, let's review it. Do you have any real problems with it as written? So far you have only voiced a procedural complaint, and having someone revert a change that they are personally "not against" makes WP:BRD almost impossible, and WP:BRDREVERT advises against it.
David is concerned that "If an article currently cites: a source that can't single-handedly prove notability" will be misinterpreted as something like "If an article currently cites: a single source". I'm aware that the that/which distinction is not going to be recognized by many people, but I'm not sure that "a source that can't single-handedly do it" is going to be misinterpreted as "a single source". I'd be happy to change the wording, if anyone has ideas about how to prevent "one inadequate source" from being misinterpreted as "one source is always inadequate". (People who have that problem will likely struggle with the entire rest of the guideline, and while I support robustly defensive writing styles, bordering on WP:BRADSPEAK, for policies and guidelines, I do not think that we can always defend against people who turn "one can a problem" into "one is always a problem" in a single sentence.)
David also seems to be concerned that an example of a level of sources that might be "obviously notable" will be misunderstood as the minimum threshold. I actually considered writing this at an even more "obvious" level. Do you share those concerns? Do you think an absurdly obvious level, like "100 non-trivial news articles, dozens of magazine articles, and five whole books", would reduce the potential for confusion this point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I point to why we do not spell out the minimum number of sources we require for notability, because we know that will be gamed. A similar statement like that will also be gamed. That's why it should go through a more careful review. Masem (t) 02:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that an example is going to be taken as something either a minimum or will establish a threshold that can be gamed in practice, but this is your opportunity for a more careful review. What exactly do you want to talk about during this review? Saying that you want to review it, but then not actually reviewing it, isn't helping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The policy reads, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Is there actually an example of an article with only one source? Sometimes articles have only one source for a period of time, but I can't think of an article that will never have multiple. Andre🚐 22:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
For purposes of notability, a single, very thorough source like a 400+pg independent biography would be sufficient to presume notability. It is expected more should be added as the article develops, but in terms of an AFD keep/delete, that would be sufficient to keep. But we do not want to give the impression that one source works in all occasions. Nor 2, nor 3, etc. It is what is giving significant coverage. Masem (t) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you asking about "only one reliable source in the real world" or "only one source cited in the current version of the WIkipedia article"? There are thousands of articles tagged with Template:One source.
There are single sources that indicate the presence of other sources (e.g., a three-star listing in the Michelin Guide: we've never yet found a three-star restaurant that hadn't been written up in multiple newspapers and magazines). Masem's example of a book-length biography tends to fall into that category (standard disclaimers apply; e.g., that it's not a self-published book).
Some editors would argue that if there really, truly is only one "qualifying" source, then the subject is not notable. In my experience, these editors tend to have a long and well-polished list of reasons why sources should not be counted (like "that 300-word article also mentions that the company completed a round of financing, and CORP says that's routine, so none of the other 288 words in that source count, either").
The main point of this section is that while (at least) one source must be cited for all BLPs, it's not the number cited in the article that matters. It's the number of sources that could be cited – sources that exist in the real world, even if they are not mentioned in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Typically, an entry in a major national-level biographical reference such as the Dictionary of National Biography or an obituary (not paid death notice) in a national-level newspaper of record such as The Times or The New York Times have been argued to be enough for notability, in the rare case of an AfD where that is the main piece of evidence for notability. I think in these cases one could usually find more sources with some searching; the argument is more that determining the outcome of the AfD can be done quickly without putting in the effort to do that search, because the one source is so good. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
A point on the boxes language that I realize now will be gamed is that it doesn't give any onus to those demonstrating notability that the real world sources not only exist but are identified. The identified articles don't have to be in the article, but they should be present on the talk page or an AFD or similar page. We don't want to have editors claiming that they know they think a book exists in a library they don't have access to...they need to at least ID the book even if they haven't been able to access it yet. The language allows the possible hand waving that allows hypothetical source claims to be made. The body text is clearer on the box again as a highlighted box, some editors will fixate on that Masem (t) 23:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't want to have editors claiming that they know they think a book exists in a library they don't have access to... Oh you mean like what happens at every single sportsperson AfD? JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
We have two sections. This subsection is "What matters is the sources in the real world, not in the article."
The WP:NRVE section is the one that says "No, the rest of us are not so gullible as to just take your word for it that there might be lots of sources in a library somewhere." When notability must be demonstrated (e.g., at AFD), then the people who want to keep the article need to name specific sources. But that's another section, not this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
We absolutely don't want people creating articles waving their hands that "sources must exist for this topic because its so popular". That's exactly what the current language in the box implies though. Yes, the body of the guideline suggests that you must explicitly state what sources support notability at a reasonable place (like a talk page), but the box will lead newer editors to bypass that. Masem (t) 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's likely, but how would you fix it? Expand it to "...then the subject is notable (but you might have to prove it)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Masem, I don't know if you missed my question for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't there is a way to fix it without losing the conciseness of the box. You have to have clear identified sources (but they don't have to be in proper cites) to avoid this, its not something we want editors to feel they can ignore. Masem (t) 22:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
A subject can notable even if you don't have "clear identified sources". There are exactly zero circumstances in which Cancer is not a notable subject. It does not matter whether the article contains a single sentence and zero sources. That is the meaning of Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.
If, and only if, the notability of the subject is actually challenged (something that seems to happen to a minority of articles), then someone has to convince other editors that sources really do exist, and the most effective way to do that is to name a bunch of sources. But how to prove it's notable is a separate consideration from whether it's notable (and perhaps a subject for a separate box or picture – imagine a tree stump with some books on it, and a caption about needing to "stump up"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
If an article currently cites:

☒N no sources at all

but the real world has:

checkY hundreds of non-trivial newspaper reports, magazine articles, and books

then the subject is notable.

Based on these comments, it sounds like editors might be more comfortable with an even more extreme contrast between article contents and real-world availability. Anyone who thinks that hundreds of sources is the minimum standard is either POV pushing or has WP:CIR problems. Do you like this version better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be creating articles without any sources, as it is very difficult to verify that those articles comply with policies like WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:N. Creating a summary box like this will incorrectly suggest that creating such articles are tolerated. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
If a new article cites X no sources at all but the real world has √ hundreds of sources, then most likely the new-page patrollers will draftify it and it will be gone after six months of staying unsourced. Declaring "it is notable" seems kind of pointless in the face of that outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Whether it's difficult to verify that the contents are verifiable depends upon the subject. An unsourced article that declares "The Spanish Renaissance sculpture was a kind of sculpture from the Spanish Renaissance" should not provoke any real concerns (i.e., from any passably educated editor) about whether the editor is engaging in original research, or whether that sentence is verifiable, or even whether the subject is notable.
The point of the section is that the article's contents are not the determinant of the subject's notability. I think this illustrates that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
If an article currently cites:

☒N no sources at all

but the real world has:

checkY hundreds of non-trivial newspaper reports, magazine articles, and books

then the subject is notable.

Today I'm wondering whether it would help to italicize the words article and subject (as shown), to highlight the distinction. While Wikipedia likely does have some notable articles (i.e., Wikipedia articles that were written about by independent sources – perhaps some of the hoax articles?), for the most part, the articles themselves are not notable, and the distinction between the article and the subject is a key point for this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

My feeling is that this kind of simplified how-to for notability really belongs in essay space, not as part of an official guideline. If it were in a separate essay, there would be a lot more freedom to polish it without nitpicky complaints that it is going to cause editors to misinterpret what it says as being the actual guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I think our guidelines should be accessible at varying levels of wikicompetence. I think this box is useful for someone who is a beginner or a novice, while the more nuanced explanation is there as people are able to level up their wiki skills. I view it as quite akin to the table in Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#How_to_apply_the_criteria. Put another way, it's more similar to a nutshell for that idea than an essay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
If it's in the actual guideline, intended for less-competent readers who are likely to misinterpret it as a literal restatement of the actual meaning of the guideline, then it should very accurately reflect the guideline rather than giving an oversimplified rule of thumb. If it's in essay space, then that kind of oversimplification and lack of accuracy is less problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
And from experience intended for less-competent readers who are likely to misinterpret it as a literal restatement of the actual meaning of the guideline happens all the time for WP:N when new editors find their article challenged at AFD or similar process. As well as endless debates that edge on the inclusionist v. deletionist war. As I've said, I get the meaning of the box and agree with what its saying in principle and lining up with the practice of WP:N, but the wording currently lacks preciseness that will create these problems, which often happens in nutshell-type statements. Masem (t) 17:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that problem will be exacerbated by this. If reading this out of context will cause problems, then so will reading Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. out of context, and that's been in this guideline for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The assertion that "...the subject is notable" (emphasis mine) doesn't reflect what the guideline actually says; which is that the subject "may be notable" – "is notable" would require a great deal more than is being suggested in this box. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Wjemather, can you give a few examples of subjects about which we have literally "hundreds of non-trivial newspaper reports, magazine articles, and books", but it's not actually notable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Most of the day to day coverage of whats happening in US politics, for example. Eg this is where NOTNEWS and NEVENT are applied to limit article creation on small scandle-like events and encourage editors to add to existing articles instead. Masem (t) 18:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Literally hundreds of sources, including books, and the subject wouldn't be notable? If you've got whole books on the subject, that doesn't sound "small" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Others will not interpret the wording how you intend. To repeat, the over simplification just doesn't accurately reflect the guideline, especially "is notable" ("may be notable" would be better) and omission of the type/quality of sources needed (reliable, independent, not primary, etc.). wjematherplease leave a message... 10:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO, not a good idea. This makes a concrete statement of notability with only a few words of conditions. For example, no requirement that the coverage be in depth. Also overrides the source type requirements for corporations. It's not that it's badly written, it's inherent in to trying to make short categorical statements about a guideline which is neither. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what distinction you draw between "non-trivial coverage" and "in-depth coverage". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
First to clarify, you are asking about what I gave as a (mere) example of my point. I should have said "Significant coverage" rather than "in-depth coverage". And then my answer would be a guidline-structural one: "Significant coverage" is the core definition of the guideline regarding that aspect. "Non-trivial" is not. I'm going to stop there because I think going further would obscure my point.North8000 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
From the GNG's description of SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this box. The subsection it is in is short as it is, so a summary does not seem that useful, and I can't tell from the above discussion what problem it is attempting to solve. Regarding interpretation, it reads as encouraging the idea of having articles that don't have even one good source, which is not something we should be aiming for even if it is within the letter of policy. CMD (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Article creation at scale

This discussion includes several questions that overlap notability requirements and may be of interest to editors here. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. Valereee (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Sister projects

I came across José Antonio Gómez Rosas, a biography with no sources except a link to a biography on Spanish Wikipedia. WP:CIRC says sister projects should be considered as primary sources. I've never seen this done before, and would like the input of others. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is the talk page for the notability guideline. Notability depends on the existence of sources, not on their current citation in the article, so have you looked for significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources? There seem to be loads of books that write about his work el Hotentote. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
You may have missed my point. The article above is sourced entirely by a sister project. Does this mean that notability on any other Wikipedia project--and there are lots of them--automatically makes you notable on English Wikipedia? What if, say, a garage band notable on Tonga Wikipedia, gets an article created on English Wikipedia sourced only by the article on Tongan Wikipedia. Is this something we want to discuss here? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
My point, which you have certainly missed, is that notability is an attribute of a subject, not an article. For notability purposes it doesn't matter a jot what sources, if any at all, are cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
That said… if the sister WP article cites sources, those sources might establish notability here on the English WP. Cite those other sources and not the sister WP article. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
En.wiki's notability is not the same as the notability guideline of any other Wiki (nor the same with other wikis among each other). So just because another wiki has the same article doesn't contribut to notability. We can, however, can evaluate the sources used on the other wikis to use within en.wiki if those sources are reliable and support en.wiki's notability. Masem (t) 21:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is a source sigcov in the following circumstances

A) Not Primary topic but does have signicant mentioning

B)Only mentions the topic once or twice but does go into detail about the information regarding the said topic NotOrrio (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Advocate Abdullah Bhuiyan Badal

Abdullah Bhuiyan Badal(born 1 march 1971)is a Bangladeshi lawer,politician,writter,sports organiser,jernoulist.He is the president of Bangladesh awamilegue akhaura city.Former secretary admin at Brahmanbaria district bar Council.He is the secretary of Akhaura upazila sports organisations.Member of Brahmanbaria District football Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohiuddin.1.wiki (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Article Mohiuddin.1.wiki (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to start an article. Learn more here. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
More