Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I have a concern for notability for List of youngest killers. Should all children and young people (who are criminals) can be presumed notable per WP:NPEOPLE and WP:NLIST, unless if uses WP:WTAF guideline. Even that violates WP:BLPLIST and WP:MINORS policy. Absolutiva (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an argument to be made that the list does not have adequate selection criteria and that the extensive lack of BLP citations requires deletion, but I think that it would likely be kept at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva, welcome to Wikipedia. When we say "notable", we mean "qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article". Nobody in the List of youngest killers is "presumed notable"; if we did presume them notable, we'd be saying "Not only should all of these people's names be listed in the List of youngest killers, but there should additionally be a separate article about each and every one of them." Merely putting someone in a list doesn't mean that they're notable (presumed or otherwise).

Also, many of the perpetrators are unnamed and/or dead, so including them cannot violate any BLP policies.

I'd suggest that the first thing to do with that list is to remove all the teenagers. More than 500 American minors – mostly teens – killed someone last year.[1] That's 10 a week; it's "newsworthy" but it's not unusual. Teenagers have served in armies throughout history, and therefore killed people throughout history; again, it may be deplorable but it's not unusual. Compare List of youngest fathers, which has a cutoff of age 14, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers for information about a list which we eventually deleted. An admin could check, but I think that list had a cutoff around age 10 or so.

I think that some clarity around selection criteria would help, but my main suggestion would be to make sure that it's focused on "youngest" (which is going to mean blanking most of it), and that editors decide whether the standard is homicide (which includes "accidents" like dropping a loaded gun) or if it's an actual murder conviction (which requires wanting the person to end up dead, which in turn requires the killer to be old enough to understand what death is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of youngest fathers, to describe males for notable cases of spermarche. For cases of precocious puberty, only one is notable, and for teenage pregnancy, but several are notable. But for previous deletion, these articles cannot be made compliant with WP:NLIST, WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTNP, WP:BLPNAME, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Also in the list of youngest killers, it does meet criteria with WP:EXEMPT1E. Absolutiva (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the List of youngest fathers is describing notable cases of 'starting to produce sperm'. It's describing mostly royalty who got married at a very young age. Teenage pregnancy used to have a similar list (example) but is now focused on modern celebrities instead.

I think that a List of youngest killers can fully comply with every policy. I understand that WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT, but it's a valid subject for a list (because, e.g., reliable sources write about what to do with very young children who have killed someone); it is not turning Wikipedia articles into news stories (maybe go read the links you're posting?); the killer's name is not the name of some "loosely involved, otherwise low-profile person" and they are very much "directly involved in an article's topic"; and a list of killers by age is a narrowly curated collection of information instead of "an indiscriminate collection of information". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The List of youngest killers recently survived a round at AFD (not nominated by anyone in this discussion). There is now a discussion atTalk:List of youngest killers#List-selection criteria that would benefit from advice from more editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's important to revisit the notability standards for schools on Wikipedia. There are numerous school articles, many of which are mere stubs that resemble directory listings rather than encyclopedia entries. This raises questions about whether the current notability guidelines effectively ensure that only genuinely notable schools are included. I suggest we discuss potential improvements or clarifications to these guidelines to maintain the quality and relevance of Wikipedia's content. 1keyhole (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is that they need to meet GNG or NCORP. See WP:NSCHOOLS. Some editors are of the view that all secondary schools and above are notable, and will express that view at AfD, resulting in articles being kept. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES used to imply all secondary schools were kept, but that has since been changed, and editors that !vote without acknowledging the change to meet GNG or NCORP need to be reminded of that. Masem (t) 17:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could never understand why "or NCORP" needed to be specified. Surely any topic that meets it meets the general notability guideline anyway? It doesn't do any harm by being there, but it's just redundant. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is slightly stronger in that it limits potentially promotional sources, which might exist for for-profit schools. — Masem (t) 14:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point. If NCORP is stronger then there is no need to specify it. "Meets WP:GNG" is exactly the same as "meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP or both". Of course for-profit schools are different, but they only account for a small proportion of child education world-wide. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP would not apply to public schools, only to for profit ones. Public schools have been GNG otherwise. — Masem (t) 20:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. (I went a bit further than that below) North8000 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public/private (leaving aside the British English definition of a "public school") is very different from not-for-profit/for-profit. Nearly all private schools, apart from adult training institutes, are not for profit. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing we can do to compel editors to vote in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. The only thing we can do is direct closers to close in accordance with them. Ravenswing 22:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is for those who close AfD discussions to take absolutely zero notice of any arguments ignoring the clear notability requirements. I agree with the initial post that there are far too many very poor quality directory listings and perma stubs about schools. AusLondonder (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though unfortunately when the same editors who try to obstruct all efforts to tighten guidelines are also among the ones most active at DRV it gets a lot harder to enforce these standards. JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I try to go by the middle of the road community interpretation. First, NCORP can structurally taken in two ways. One is as conditions for using the SNG "way in". The other would be toughening the requirements for applying GNG / the GNG "way in". IMO the community applies a slightly more lenient interpretation for schools and not-for profit organizations than it does for for-profit businesses. And if it is about a single significant facility, additional consideration is given for NGEO possibilities. IMO the middle of the road interpretation for a school (that is not mostly a for-profit business) is to have some near-GNG sources (something more than just factoids and sports team results) and some real content resultant from them. I know that until we acknowledge how wp:notability actually works this does not fit neatly into any flowchart / binary decisions of the guidelines, and also would have a hard time tidying this up. But IMO until then this has been the middle-of-the-road of how the community treats it. Also, in deciding that there is no SNG "easy way in" the community decided that it does not want huge amounts of stubs created based on an SNG / merely for being a school. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself questioning the premise that we truly need to effectively ensure that only genuinely notable schools are included.

@1keyhole, I wonder if you've ever read the Wikipedia:Editing policy. It says, fairly early on, that As a rule, the more accepted knowledge [Wikipedia] contains, the better. Your comment makes me think that your POV is "the less knowledge, the better", which is the opposite of our long-standing policy.

With that in mind, I'd like you to explore the idea that our actual, policy-based goal is to "include" as much factual information about as many schools as we can. That needn't always look like a completely separate article for every school, but it also doesn't look like setting up a high bar, in which only "genuinely notable" schools are included and all the others – ordinary-notable schools? borderline-notable schools? merge-worthy non-notable ones? – are excluded.

Thinking about this in WP:WHYN terms, if "genuine notability" looks like a long article with lots of sources, you've already made a mistake. The median article has four refs in it. NB: "four refs", not "four WP:INDY WP:SECONDARY WP:SIRS refs with WP:SIGCOV". Just four of any kind, including non-independent primary sources and sources that don't mention the subject. The median article also has 13 sentences. If you're looking at a school article that's anywhere near that median, I suggest to you that it's not making Wikipedia "worse", and you should probably leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long standing problem of how some editors envision WP and notability is a notable topic must have a standalone article, whereas WP:N says that's only a necessary condition for a standalone. School articles, particularly public, govt-backed ones, nearly always can be associated with a geographic place like a city, town, township, or county (or equivalent), and that makes an ideal place to discuss the school system at that level, including individual schools, if the standalone article can only be backed by a few sources and have maybe two or three Para of prose, using redirects as necessary. WP has no aversion to talking about schools, just that need for the sepearate article is often not needed ( and this applies to a lot more topic areas than just schools) — Masem (t) 00:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to leave the most condescending possible reply? @1keyhole raises the valid and obvious point that we have a lot of contentless school stubs that likely don't meet our guidelines, and your response is to recommend they "follow editing policy" because they "seem" to believe "the less knowledge, the better", imply their goal isn't policy-based, bring up utterly irrelevant statistics about the abysmal median sourcing on pages in general, and then suggest they just leave crappy stubs alone if they have any kind of sourcing at all. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this misunderstands 1keyhole point, at no point do they discuss removing information. This is about when a stand alone article should exist, information about the school could still be included in other articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you looked at AFDstats (voted to delete 92% of the time; articles actually deleted only 34% of the time, which is well below average) and their contribs, e.g., their comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McAdam High School or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Kenton High School or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewel and Esk College, you might have a different perception. It sounds like they're looking for a subjective sense of importance ("Why is this particular school notable?", newsworthy events don't "augment the significance of these institutions", wanting editors to explain why schools "merit" articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of editors making invalid arguments in those AfDs, I'm guessing that's why they posted here. If you believe they have a behavioural issue then I suggest this isn't the correct place to make accusations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am making no accusations of behavioral problems. I am instead using information that is easily found but not on this page (unlike some of the editors who replied to me?) to form an opinion about what the OP is thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP raised a discussion point, personal opinions about the OP don't add anything to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:NOT states, "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." This is why there aren't 700 separate entries for each individual London bus route—though I'm sure many bus enthusiasts would appreciate having that many articles dedicated to London buses. 1keyhole (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are 700+ redirects to List of bus routes in London. This is what we do when we discover an article on a real but basically unsuitable subject: bus routes get redirected to the transit system, schools get redirected to the city/school district, music videos get redirected to the band, and so forth.

The targeted article gets just enough information that future editors can see that the redirect isn't silly vandalism: "Bus Route 12" gets put in the list, the city gets an ==Education== section that says there are schools "such as _____", the band's article gets a line that says "They released their 'Stupid Banana Art' music video in 2024", and so forth. This is quick, easy, simple, and doesn't require AFD or the deletion button at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does sometimes require AfD. As has been noted in this discussion, some editors continue to flout SCHOOLOUTCOMES and insist on keeping an article, even where a merge and redirect should be uncontroversial. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, merges never require AfD, even if they're contested. Proposed mergers is the proper venue for that. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I use PM when appropriate, but I think most people don't even know it exists and just resort to AfD instead. I think they should just be folded into one another at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Honestly it has gotten so much better at AFD since the RFC overturned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in 2017. It was ridiculous before then. Pre-2017 if a school was brought to AFD it was closed almost immediately as keep no matter how bad the sourcing was. There are still a lot of bad school articles as a leftover of the old days, but when they are brought to AFD they are either improved with more referencing or they are deleted. It's been a long time since I have personally seen a school pass an AFD without solid referencing being produced. My impression is schools aren't getting free passes anymore. Obviously I haven't looked at every deletion discussion involving schools. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an active NPP'er and would agree. But IMO the biggest change has been to reduce the mass production of these articles (rather than a shift of what happens at AFD.) IMO the defacto standard is to have sources that sort of 3/4 meet a stringent interpretation of GNG. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but focusing on article creation is a losing strategy. We are fundamentally an encyclopedia anyone can edit and that isn’t going to change. With that comes the creation of many poorly thought through articles, which is one reason AFD is such an active place. One could argue for stricter article creation processes but these have always failed when brought to an RFC for the barriers they place both on experienced content creators and in discouraging new editors. Not to mention the already large backload at WP:AFC review. I don’t think the current system is perfect, but I also don’t see any obvious improvements that are likely to gain traction in a community wide discussion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that the current system regarding schools is working pretty good. I think you misunderstood my point. If the criteria are reasonably good, that has effects everywhere....AFD, NPP, AFC, and whether or not editors are creating lots of articles that don't meet the (newish) criteria.North8000 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for the last two weeks. The biggest problem I'm seeing is AFD noms of high schools outside the core English-speaking countries (US/UK/CA/AU/NZ). Several voters have given a rationale of the school being nothing special. An unfortunate number of them amount to the nom putting the transliterated name into Google News (probably with English-only settings) and not finding much ...under a name that isn't used in reality. If we're lucky, someone will come by to search in the local language, but mostly that doesn't happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INTRODUCTION: Hello, I would like to bring up the current state of the SNG WP:NMOTORSPORTS and how it should be changed. My original idea for the changes can be viewed here, at the WikiProject talk page; however, it did not receive much traffic and I wish to create a more formal post regarding my proposal.

BACKGROUND: I'll try to summarize the situation as best as possible since most editors are not aware of this niche editing area: Within recent months, there has been a growing number of editors, pages, and work overall done to motorsports single series (FIA Formula 2, FIA Formula 3, Formula Regional, and Formula 4, herein referred to as feeder series). This includes myself, as this is the main area where I edit. To my interpretation, WP:NMOTORSPORTS was intended as a rough guide on who may have significant coverage, and not as a definitive list to determine who is and who is not notable in the motorsports world. However, the guideline has been misinterpreted as the latter, and WP:NMOTORSPORTS is frequently cited at AfCs and AfDs as a definitive criteria in addition to GNG. This makes thing especially frustrating for feeder series drivers' articles, since there is no specific criteria, and the current criteria is out of date. There are plenty of examples of this, but one that caught my eye specifically is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vittorio Zoboli (although not a feeder series article), which shows how editors frequently misinterpret the policy (not shaming any editors, but that's what ends up happening).

PROPOSAL:

AMEND:

"A top-level feeder series to Formula One or MotoGP, such as the GP2 Series or the Moto2 World Championship" to "A top-level feeder series to Formula One or MotoGP, such as the FIA Formula Two, FIA Formula 3, Indy NXT or the Moto2 World Championship"

SINGLE SEATER CRTIERIA:

"10. Meet the following criteria for the the respective single seater series:"

• Completion of one full season or a race winner in a Formula Regional series

• Completion of one full season or a race winner in W Series/F1 Academy

• Podium finish in the Macau Grand Prix (single seater)

• Champion or vice champion in a Formula 4 series"

IMPACT: If the above changes were implemented, there would be a lot more continuity regarding who might and who might not qualify for an article. Obviously GNG takes precedence, but there is currently a lot of confusion regarding the gap in the guideline. It would also help out to delete/decline less notable drivers who might not deserve an article yet.

IMPLEMENTATION/CONCLUSION: I'm not sure exactly how this can be implemented, as I am still new to Wikipedia guidelines and am not very good at writing proposals (if you couldn't tell). I think what I have outlined in the proposal section would be a massive improvement, and would help benefit the feeder series editing community. I would be more than happy to answer or respond to any questions or concerns, as I am aware this is a very niche topic. Thank you for reading! :)

UPDATE: RfC posted on the NSPORTS talk page [2] GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way to fix the problem you've identified is not to expand the list, but to add something like "meeting these criteria does not establish notability and you need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources to actually show that this topic is notable if notability is challenged." voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a possible solution to add, I agree, however;

I'm not sure exactly when the guideline was written, but given the fact it says GP2 Series, it is likely before 2016. This section of Wikipedia would not of existed 8 years ago, as the program as a whole has expanded within the last decade. I feel that the guideline should be expanded to reflect on the real life changes to the program, especially considering how many articles there are relating to it. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but it's been happening too much and edit wars are happening as a result of people strictly following the notability list Motorsportfan100 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change this guideline, you should make a WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) (i.e., on the talk page of the guideline that would be affected).

Depending on which problem you're most concerned about, changing "such as" to "including, but not limited to" might provide a level of clarity, as would a statement that says "The actual rule is to follow the GNG. The following list is only a best guess at which levels of achievement are most likely to have GNG-level coverage. If the person is at this level but not GNG, then they're still not notable, and if they're below this level but have GNG-level coverage, then they're notable anyway." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised to post this here, so should I just link this topic on NSPORTS, or copy my argument and establish an RfC? If I do need to do an RfC, do I need to change my argument, as a brief skimming of the page shows that my post is probably a bit too long. I have never done anything like this before, and I've been editing for <2 months, so I'm quite unfamiliar with these processes.

As for the second paragraph, I agree, that could also be implemented to prevent the misuse of the guideline. As per my comment above to voorts, I think both should be done, if possible. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GalacticVelocity08, if you decide to pursue this, then you're going to need some help. Editors at WT:RFC are happy to help you write a sensible question for an RFC, but before you can do that, you'll need to be able to explain what your goal is. The RFC should happen at the notability guideline that you want to change. Before you can start the RFC, you need to figure out what you want to change and how to explain/propose that change for people who don't know anything about sports. Those discussions can happen anywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I posted an RfC about a week ago here on the NSPORTS talk page. That is my fault, I forgot to add an update to my original post. I'll do that shortly. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this line in this guideline: "For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response..."

It only makes sense if you already know what our wikijargon says. What's a notable article? The kind we don't delete. What kind of articles do we not delete? The notable ones. How do you know if they're notable? They don't get deleted. This is not really helpful.

I think we should re-word some of these statements to say instead that "For articles on subjects that clearly do not qualify for a separate article, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response..."

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete the whole paragraph. It's redundant of the first paragraph in that section. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"notability" and "having a separate article" are not equivalent concepts. There are other places that notability can be used beyond just whether to have a separate article such as with lists. It also conflicts with the concept in WP:NOPAGE that not all notable topics need a separate article. Masem (t) 17:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the guideline says: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article."

I conclude there that "Notability" is equivalent to "warrants (aka 'qualifies for') a separate article". Do you disagree? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:No original research § Primary

 – Wrong venue.

Not sure where I should place this discussion, but I hope I'm at the right place. It is often said that interviews are "primary" sources, meaning they are not reliable per WP:PRIMARY. However, most of the times we get personal information (birth dates, birth place and backstory) and upcoming release dates for movies and music from interviews (late-night shows and so on) and they always turn out to be accurate. I think if the interview was published by a reliable source then it's most definitely reliable, because if another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's not reliable. Not sure if I make much sense, but any objections? dxneo (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this in the talk page for Wikipedia:Notability. I agree that sources can be reliable while not being independent or secondary. However, our general notability guideline requires that sources be reliable, in-depth, independent, and secondary. For a biographical article, most information in interviews of the subject is generally not independent: it comes directly from the subject. Therefore, while it may be reliable, and may be acceptable as a reference for claims in an article, this type of sourcing does not contribute to notability, the topic of relevance for this discussion page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suitable place to discuss this is the talk page of the article that contains the passage you're referring to. WP:PRIMARY is part of Wikipedia:No original research, so you should inquire about this at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Largoplazo (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. dxneo (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The is a discussion of whether to add to the WP:GNG section at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Proposal: Move WP:SIRS from this page to a subheading under WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG text says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Why doesn't this include tertiary sources? I'd think that significant coverage in a tertiary source is also "objective evidence of notability." Also, "secondary sources" links to WP:PSTS, which says "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability...," so there's an inconsistency. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources can be used carefully. With notability we are looking for more than just simple facts but some type of transformation if information about a topic as to why it is considered worthy of note. Reference works (tertiary) often include everything under the sun when they act more as a primary work (like sports almanacs) , which may it may not include that type of transformative thoughts. So using a tertiary source as a source for notability should be used with a high degree of caution to make sure that it is providing the type of significant coverage we want to see. — Masem (t) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Masem said. Just adding a bit, "caution" includes consideration of the nature of the source and content including the transformative content. IMO for 98% of tertiary sources it falls short for GNG use and for the most of the other 2% (i.e. they have an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica) there are probably plenty of secondary GNG sources without needing to look at tertiary ones. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that tertiary sources are evidence of notability. In worst cases, they can be short and unreliable. Even in better cases, you don't get much more than a dictionary definition, which isn't enough for a separate article on our Encyclopedia. Tertiary sources might verify a fact or two, but without more, it probably belongs on a larger article. (In exceptional cases, anything with substantial coverage in a quality tertiary source will have similar coverage in secondary sources anyway.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the tertiary source. The keys to sourcing notability are depth of coverage and independence from the subject/topic. If a tertiary source has these two keys, I don’t see what the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm wondering if the GNG text should be altered a bit, saying something like "Sources should generally be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, but a tertiary source may be used if it includes transformative content and meets the other requirements of this section." The section already notes that all sources establishing notability must provide significant coverage, and be independent and reliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of "if it includes transformative content". We might worry about that for a primary source, but why would that be a worry for tertiary sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to incorporate Masem's and North8000's concerns. I'm not wedded to any particular wording. What would you suggest? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we stick with secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

The main concerns you voiced earlier would already lead the tertiary source to be excluded (e..g, "they can be short and unreliable" doesn't meet the RS standard, "you don't get much more than a dictionary definition" doesn't meet the significant coverage standard). As for your other case, "anything with substantial coverage in a quality tertiary source will have similar coverage in secondary sources anyway," so what? If an editor uses two secondary sources and a tertiary source that all meet the requirements, and the editor has access to the tertiary source and not to a third secondary source, why would you insist that they chase down a third secondary source? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Tertiary sources may also be used if they provide significant coverage? XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a distinct section addressing the need for significant coverage. As I think about this more, given that any source has to meet the other requirements of the GNG section (e.g., reliability, independence, significant coverage), I might say "Sources should generally be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, though a tertiary source may be used" or perhaps just switch to the language at PSTS: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a work like a Who's Who compilation (ignoring the fact these usually are pay-to-include) which likely would be considered tertiary as a reference work. Most will include biographical details about a person, but they will all be surface-level details, reiterating the basics about the person's life, but likely will not get into reasons why that person is more worthy-of-note of any other person. All that type of information is non-transformative and while it could be taken as significant coverage, it remains a far weaker sources to rest notability compared to a secondary source that, via transformation of the basic facts, of why that person would be worthy-of-note.

Basically, there are a lot of topics that have detailed information that can be found in tertiary sources, but the type of information is straight facts and would be considered a primary source if published by itself. The transformation aspect of secondary sources, which some tertiary sources have, is what helps us ascertain notability. Masem (t) 13:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see the point of making this point, here. You could equally well argue against secondary sources, claiming correctly that many secondary sources just name-drop the subject of a BLP as the source of a quote about whatever else they're really talking about. It would be true. It would not be valid or relevant as an argument about why we should use tertiary sources instead. So why do you think it was important to make a point that some tertiary sources are not in-depth, as part of a discussion focused on how some people think we should avoid all tertiary sources in favor of secondary sources? How is it any more valid or relevant than the point that some secondary sources are not in-depth? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding overly blunt, all of this seems entirely beside the point. Superficiality would be a reason to exclude a secondary source from counting towards notability, too. (So would being pay-to-include.) In other words, you're comparing a hypothetical bad tertiary source against a hypothetical good secondary source. That's not a reason to dismiss all tertiary sources. If my print copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica that I've had since I was a child has an article about something, then the default expectation should be that Wikipedia has an article about it too. Indeed, I'd consider "Britannica has an article on this" as an all-but knockdown keep argument at AfD. (I say "all-but" because for organizational reasons we might go for a merge instead. Writing is complicated.)

Really, this whole debate seems to be a symptom of taking a distinction that we basically made up — or at the very least, one that we use in an idiosyncratic way, while pretending it is much more clear-cut than it really is — and treating it so seriously that we give ourselves a headache.

OK, time for me to check out of the bikeshed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the material provided by a source is short, unreliable, merely a dictionary definition, only verifying a fact or two, etc., then it's not going to count much towards notability, even if it's "secondary" instead of "tertiary". In other words, a good tertiary source has to meet the same qualifications as a good secondary source. XOR'easter (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]