Wikipedia talk:Notability

RFC on significant coverage and fictional characters

Requesting outside input on how WPVG should be interpreting "significant" coverage when evaluating fictional characters and listicles. RFC here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Rosenberg resolution czar 15:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Airbnb

I do not know if this topic warrants a page or not. It is my understanding that mathematical formulas cannot be the subject of copyright or proprietary information. I really do not know if this is true or not, but I know that Weight Watcher's could not keep the mathematical formula they use to determine how many points a particular food has a secret and the formula was here on Wikipedia. Anyway, Airbnb.com has this sliding scale for their commission that they charge guests. It is between 6% and 12% of whatever the host charges the guests. The guests often ask me how much the commission will be but I cannot answer this question because Airbnb.com will not tell me the formula. Is this legal? I asked if this was proprietary information and they said yes. Basically, how it works is, if the guest is paying a small amount the commission is higher, and if they are paying a lot it is lower, but they will not reveal the points at which it goes up or down. This stupid company prides itself on honesty and transparency, but that is only for the users, not for them. Is this a topic that would warrant a page or investigation. Would it even be possible to find out? Annforbes86 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have answered this query at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Companies notable for one event

Please consider commenting on a proposed new change at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Companies_notable_for_one_event. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-promotion and publicity: a sentence on interviews?

I think we need to at least caution against interviews as sources for notability. This would be, IMHO, supported by Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_52#Can_someone_be_notable_for_the_fact_that_they_were_interviewed_by_a_major_media_outlet..._regardless_of_what_they_were_interviewed_about, Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_51#How_to_word_it_so_people_know_notable_interviews_count_towards_notability.3F and Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_49#Interviews_count_as_primary.2C_but_it_says_for_GNG_you_need_secondary_source. At the very least, it seems to me we have a consensus that not all interviews are sufficient. Trying to word a sentence about when they are might be a pain, but overall I think we should say something, and link to Wikipedia:Interviews, if only so that some people don't treat an interview as a 100% bad (or good) source by default. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems like better advice at WP:PSTS, since its whether the interview is primary or secondary (and there's no absolute answer there either : an interview with a person asking them to recollect events from several years back would be secondary if the interviewer person is adding their commentary on the matter). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input about the inclusion of a high school in a political biography article

This page is only for talking about how to modify or improve the Notability policy, and this inquiry isn't even about the issue of Notability, much less about the policy. Try NPOVN or, to attract additional neutral editors to help form consensus, RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor and I are having a disagreement on the article Ted Deutch about whether the article subject's high school should be included. I've added a half-sentence reference to the "Early life and education" section, as well as a category identifying him as Liberty High School alumni, but the editor has repeatedly reverted it ([1] [2] [3] [4]). In the talk page, he says that it's "silly trivia of no importance" and "not important enough to include in his article", with which I obviously disagree. I'd like to gather more input to determine a WP:CONSENSUS as to whether this information should be included, so any feedback at Talk:Ted Deutch#Inclusion of high school would be appreciated. Please keep the conversation there, not here on this talk page, so it's all in one place. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"One sentence mention"

I suggest changing "one sentence" to "fourteen word" in footnote 1. This is a purely cosmetic change, but it might discourage certain types of bizarre wikilawyering. Sentences can be arbitrarily long (eg one sentence in James Joyce's "Ulysses" is 4,391 words long) and can therefore contain an arbitrarily large amount of information. One could communicate the same information in one sentence or multiple sentences. (One could, for example, rewrite the example given in two sentences without change of meaning). Whether one does so is a purely stylistic choice that has nothing to do with the importance of the information in question. Accordingly, since it is the amount of information (the number of facts, or depth of coverage, or level of detail) that matters, I would suggest removing anything that might be taken to suggest that an author's style of writing affects notability. I appreciate this could backfire with people looking at the number of words instead of the amount of information, but I think it less likely than people looking at the number of sentences because of the present text. James500 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to any examples of such quibbling, or are you worrying about a hypothetical problem not actually observed in the wild? Anyway, I have a better suggestion: just remove the whole footnote. The two examples it gives are so extreme as to elucidate the concept of "trivial" not at all. EEng (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly a number of entire essays devoted to this "quibbling". Eliminating "one sentence" would allow us to get rid of them. I can't recall an example off the top of my head, but I think the issue of a source that is one or a small number of really long sentences has to arise sooner or later, by the laws of chance alone. In that event, in view of the existence of the essays, I think some very extreme deletionists would fight it out on a perceived technicality. Questions about the lower limit do frequently arise when a relatively short source contains information that is particularly important and possibly difficult to merge (one of the reasons we have SNG), or there are a large number of relatively short sources, and the sum total of the information in all of them put together is large. The lack of clear guidance causes a lot of arguments. I'm not sure the lower example is that extreme, since the 'selective database' criteria of NJOURNALS, which is widely accepted, allows the use of something that is equivalent to mere inclusion in a "list of the best". I have known instances where editors have absurdly argued that books several hundred pages long were not sufficient, so I don't want to remove the upper example altogether, for fear of a spree of nominations. Indeed, I would suggest replacing it with a more realistic example of something that would always be regarded as significant. James500 (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURO. If people are quibbling because a guideline saying specifically "sentence" and are trying to justify keeping or deletion on the exact wording, that's not how guidelines are to be used. They capture the intent, and it's pretty clear from the example what the intent is, ignoring that there might be that Joyce's 4000-word-long sentence as a clear extreme. Guidelines are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. It may be that somewhere there's someone who will actually argue that "one sentence" is some kind of formal lower bound, or that 500-page books aren't substantial enough, but such people will soon be laughed off any talk page. People either that dumb or that asinine will just as easily argue that the "14 words" is a formal dividing line. You may not have noticed that I acted on my suggestion in my earlier post, and boldly removed the examples entirely. I encourage everyone to think whether anything is actually lost thereby, but if y'all think it should go back, so be it -- though in that case I'd hope we can come up with good examples that actually help editors parse hard cases, instead of the extreme obviousness of the current examples. (Unfortunately I can't think of any such good examples, though like Justice Potter, I know significant coverage when I see it.) EEng (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

How about the following suggestions for the very obvious (ie not a lower bound): one (good) 'scholarly' book (from eg OUP/CUP) or (journal) article of reasonable length (in eg Law Quarterly Review/Modern Law Review or something of that kind of stature or otherwise similarly suitable); NYT/The Times obituary; Britannica/ODNB article. I assume the nature of the topic (ie clearly a distinct thing in of itself, rather than more clearly a facet of a broader thing) is such that awkward merger would be undesirable. In view of things like NJOURNALS, I don't think I can give you a lower bound. To express a definitive opinion about hard cases, I'd have to give the matter a lot more thought. James500 (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing the examples wholesale without replacing them with anything. Saying a book is non-trivial is pretty unnecessary, yes, but though EEng removed the examples as being too extreme, it serves to enable those who routinely argue in favor of single sentences and list items counting among significant coverage. The original request was to change "one sentence" to "14 words" along these same lines, under the pretense of being "purely cosmetic". Before opening this thread James first went to Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, which previously just functioned to highlight a couple passages from GNG and changed it into this. In addition to removing some of what was there, he added a page-dominating "alternative view" which argues that the example sentence in the GNG is not something that can be generalized and only means that that sentence is what is not significant coverage. So I have to disagree with that the examples are too extreme to be helpful. Changing "one sentence" to "14 words" helps to wikilawyer that point. Removing it altogether removes a common understanding of "trivial mention". That's not to say it couldn't be improved upon, though. What about indeed getting rid of the footnote but replacing it in the text with "There is no fixed minimum number of sentences or paragraphs, but a single sentence rarely constitutes significant coverage." It makes it more generalized and open without losing the meaning altogether. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No, User:Rhododendrites, in its original form that essay was a terrible piece of wikilawyering that insisted that all single sentences were inherently insignificant regardless of their length and character, even if they were 4000 words long and communicating information of the utmost importance. I did not suggest that the example could not be generalized to broadly similar single sentences, I only pointed out that there was no reason to assume that it could be generalized to a completely disimilar sentence. Or at least that was what I expected a literate and reasonably intelligent person to understand by what I said. James500 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea of something along the lines of what you're saying, in the main text. The problem is that I can think of a lot of vaguely right-seeming ideas we want to get across, but so far I don't know how to synthesize them into something coherent and actually useful. Adding my own ideas to Rh's just above:

• There is no fixed minimum number of sentences or paragraphs, but a single sentence rarely constitutes significant coverage
• cannot be reduced to a simple length requirement
• a subjective evaluation

..um... see, here I get lost. The more I think about it the more at a loss for words I get (and that doesn't happen much, as my friends and relations will testify). But maybe we can do something useful with the examples. Can we fill in the blanks of the following?

The one-sentence mention by Martin Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton ("In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice") is plainly trivial. Had the passage read

__________________________________________________________

it might be considered significant coverage, and the following would certainly be considered significant:

__________________________________________________________

EEng (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the word you are looking for is probably "similar". A sentence/passage similar to the example is plainly trivial. Or perhaps "broadly similar" or "not completely disimilar". Or something to that effect. I think a proper definition of "trivial mention" would likely require its own guideline, containing a mountain of text. James500 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Um, I'm not looking for a word. Honestly, I have trouble parsing your comments. EEng (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologise if what I said was unclear. I was suggesting that the original text of the footnote might be replaced with something roughly like the following text:

The one-sentence mention by Martin Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton ("In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice") is plainly trivial. Any broadly similar one sentence mention is also plainly trivial. James500 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly better than nothing, but I think that guidelines are most useful when the advice is general, but with language that leaves a little bit of gray area for exceptions. This example doesn't actually seem to be clarifying anything because it creates a different question of what "broadly similar" means and, to me anyway, makes it hard to extract a generalizable best practice. The fact of the matter is, in the majority of cases a single sentence is not considered sufficient -- but there are exceptions. So let's just say that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how the "broadly similar" bit helps. As Rh said, it just replaces one question with another.

You know, maybe if we're serious about this we should all go back to editing, and in the course of that we might find sample passages in source we feel would be especially good illustrations. I still think we should have three if we can: one clearly trivial, one clearly substantial (but not a book), and a grey-area one. EEng (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm still of the position that while we need something there, it would be best if we could word it in a general way rather than talk about specifics at all. A general principle is evenly gray rather than create several dimensions of gray for each of the examples. BTW: I restored the previous version of the page. The examples need work, but something is better than nothing so in the meantime I think it's best to restore. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The focus on number of pages, sentences, or words is tangential. From the disputes I've seen, the question is whether or not the cited source is covering the topic in a meaningful way beyond a simple noting of its existence. Accordingly I think not providing a length-based guideline avoids obscuring the true intent. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Meaningful" is too vague in practice. The point of elaborating upon it is to expand upon what that means in practice. What is or is not "meaningful" or "significant" is the central point of many notability-based discussions. Guidelines are useful to avoid re-inventing the wheel every time, codifying best practices derived from consensus-based application of the rules in practice. Setting a baseline best practice based on the fact that a single sentence is not considered significant coverage in the vast majority of cases seems helpful to quickly avoid wasting time explaining the finer points of what "meaningful" or "significant" means when someone is advocating for a few words or presence of a name on a list as "meaningful" or "significant". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with giving additional guidance for clarification. I think, though, giving real examples that are not length-based would be preferable. For example, in college sports, coverage of a game can mention a player in multiple sentences. This does not add up to notability for the player, though, as it is considered to be routine coverage. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Now, see, that's a great example! Why don't you add that? EEng (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't want to see the word "routine" anywhere in this guideline. It is used at AfD as a code word for "I don't like it" or "ignore all coverage in periodicals whatsoever". James500 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Routine, trivial, whatever. Let me suggest this additional example:

Coverage of sports events routinely describe the actions of players during the various plays; repeated mention, of one particular player, in such descriptions do not constitute substantial coverage of that player.

EEng (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added an example regarding sports games. isaacl (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not an example of GNG. WP:ROUTINE is a separate guideline. SNG like ROUTINE are not part of GNG. I see no value in GNG simply repeating things said by other guidelines. There are too many restrictive SNG to repeat all their criteria in GNG (the list would be impossibly lengthy), and there is no reason to single out that one in particular. James500 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

While the word "routine" doesn't have to be used, when judging the notability of sports figures Wikipedia's guidance on routine coverage is an important consideration, as well as the underlying policy that Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Having given the matter further consideration, I am not convinced that we should restore that footnote in any form. Anything that is included in that footnote is certain to have an awesome spin put on it by wikilawyers. The more detailed the explanation included, the more ammunition they have. I doubt that the community will ever reach a consensus on meaningful, as opposed to extreme, examples of what constitutes a trivial mention. I doubt we are capable of forming a sufficient consensus on this page without an RfC. A new much more precise definition of "trivial mention" would be a massive change that is likely to be opposed by a lot editors on both extremes. I don't want to discuss this for weeks and months and then get nowhere or get something awful. Since the concept is subjective, I doubt that a truly satisfactory explanation is possible. In the mean time, I think the two examples are sufficiently bad that they may be useless or worse. And, let's be honest, many editors don't even read them. James500 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that you're disinclined towards these examples is a given. You've made your distaste for this passage (and this guideline in general) quite clear (except as can be argued to the letter, e.g. via your edits to the trivial mentions essay linked above). Removing the example makes it easier to continue arguing in favor of one-sentence mentions (and sentence fragments and list items) counting among significant coverage. There is a tiring irony in the manner and frequency with which you advocate a position based on the assumption of bad faith that such and such other people do/would wikilawyer over them. I'm increasingly of the mind that an rfc or some other mechanism/venue is the only way to ensure the consensus interpretation of the guideline is effectively reflected. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As the person who originally removed the two examples as useless, now that they're back, and I've modified them a bit, I'm glad they're back. What do you think of the modifications I made? EEng (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) I never thought I would be able to say this, because I could not figure out how it could be done, but ... I think that the rewritten version of the lower example is excellent! I think that its wording is probably beyond being twisted. The higher example is certainly much better than it was, though it could do with further reduction. How about reducing it from a full book to a full chapter? (2) I am aware that some guidelines contain references to "routine" coverage. However, I am also aware, from the talk pages of those guidelines, and their archives, that there is intense opposition, to at least some of those references, from a large number of editors advancing many excellent arguments. It is clear to me that those particular references are living on borrowed time and will eventually be deleted. Restaurant reviews, for example, are not root of all evil. (3) User:Rhododendrites, I urge you to consider that your accusations are, not for the first time, entirely erroneous. Far from opposing the rewritten version of the lower example, I strongly support it. I did not oppose the original version because I wanted to allow wikilawyering, but rather, because the original version was verbal garbage, and, despite racking my brains, I could not figure out how to put it right. Far from expressing distaste for this guideline in general, I have expressed distaste for mega-deletionist interpretations of it. James500 (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: It looks a little clearer than it was originally, and I do prefer it being in the text rather than in the footnote. As above, I think it would be better to replace the examples with something more generally applicable, but acknowledging that would likely demand an RfC or somesuch, I'm satisfied.

@James500: I'll just reply to (3) That's great that you support it. Genuinely. However, that you did not express distaste for the guideline here and did not here advocate here for counting one sentence mentions, etc. doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of belying diffs. That said, if this is as resolved as it can be, I see no point in continuing to engage on the matter.

There is still the question of Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, though. You and I have been arguing across a few different pages lately (we both clearly keep an eye on notability/deletion-related discussions) and I'm concerned that me jumping in to edit that essay as well would not, at this point in time anyway, lead to a productive outcome. I will say that I strongly object to your changes of this to this, which, as I see it, hijacks the meaning of the essay from its original intent to turn it into a spectacle of wikilawyering. My recommendation would be to restore the original text (and perhaps update it given the updates here -- maybe EEng could do that), then take the "alternative view" to a separate [new] essay which you then link to from the first in the See also section. There are many such differing essays linking to each other as such. But I'll leave that to you and others to sort out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) The original text of that essay was a terrible piece of wikilawyering. All I did was make it as neutral as possible. Since the original text was entirely about the expression "one sentence mention" (notice that it didn't even mention the other example, because the agenda was to delete as much stuff as possible) a total rewrite would be necessary. It would have to be ripped to pieces. Even the new version is rendered obsolete by the changes here. Moving 'alternative view 2', but not the other, to a separate essay would not be appropriate as the essay "Trivial mentions" should not express only the most deletionist interpretation possible. The nature of its location is such that it should be as neutral as possible. Bearing in mind how little the guideline says about "trivial mentions" any gloss placed on the guideline could only be pure speculation. I doubt there is value in having such speculation in that location in particular. My inclination is to mark it as historical or redirect it, or if there are other guidelines mentioning "trivial mentions", disambiguate it, or, if you really must, have a list of essays containing such pure speculation as aforesaid. And the potential for such speculation may be infinite. I can think of many tests that one might apply. Notice that Wikipedia:Significant coverage is a redirect. (2) I have no idea what the diffs you refer to are. I can only assume that you must have misunderstood something that I said. James500 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seems like there's more going on here than I'd realized. Perhaps I can act as a third opinion when I'm free later today. EEng (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've poke around, and I have to agree with Rh that James' changes to WP:Trivial Mentions [5] are inappropriate. You say you're making it NPOV, but NPOV doesn't apply in project space, which is a place for editors to express viewpoints on project matters; essays in particular are for an editor/group of editors to express what may even be a minority view. Furthermore, your changes complexify the text beyond all reason. I'll wait to hear from you, but I think reversion is in order. You might want to start an alternative essay of your own (which you can link from the See-also of Trival Mentions.) EEng (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hearing nothing, I'm reverting. EEng (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:EEng: I haven't replied because I have been occupied elsewhere. I am under the impression that Rhododendrites would agree with the proposition that essays that reflect a minority position should be userfied. Since the notion that a sentence thousands of words long is plainly trivial is obviously an extreme minority position, and since the quotes in this essay are now out of date, and thus contradict the guideline, I suggest this essay should suffer that fate. I am tempted to MfD it if some kind of improvement is not made. James500 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are foolish enough to try MfD, you risked being laughed at, or reprimanded for WP:POINTYness, or worse. Everything is meant to be read with common sense, not like a proposition in formal logic, and no one in his right mind would take the position that a thousand-word sentence is what's contemplated in that essay. Please don't waste people's time. EEng (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that is exactly what is being contemplated by that essay, otherwise there is no reason to write what it says, as that simply is what the essay says. If its wording was merely ambiguous I might agree with you, but its wording is not remotely ambiguous. Nor is it an error that could plausibly be made by accident (though the original editor might have genuinely imagined that was the intended meaning of the dodgy wording now removed from the guideline). An inexperienced editor might take what it says seriously. James500 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If an inexperienced editor can't understand what it says, right there at the beginning:

...then I'm not sure we can do anything about that. EEng (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

On the "routine" language

There's been some back and forth on the main page over text introduced above (see this diff for how it was added) that is being contested.

My take is that what we're trying to say is that a topic that is only covered by routine coverage, as is the case of most non-championship major league sporting events, is not sufficient for meeting notability, hence why we don't have articles for every single such game. It is not meant to discount such sources as invalid throughout WP, as they can augment other non-routine sources for a topic, just that if that's the whole extent of the coverage, you likely don't have a notable topic. If the wording needs to be changed we should discuss that but this is a valid aspect to add. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: The language that was inserted included none of those nuances. Something more nuanced along these lines would be fine:

For ordinary sports events and games, a WP:ROUTINE newspaper account comparable to those typically published for such events, is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of a stand-alone article about the event or game. Similarly, WP:ROUTINE coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.) is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of a stand-alone article about individual athletes.

Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fair to add, I would also make sure it is clear that such sources are not precluded to otherwise support other "significant" sources for an article. I'm just trying to resolve the slow edit warring going on. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That's way better than what I had. EEng (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a single example that I added on the request of another editor as something between an entire book covering a topic and a single sentence in an article. I think the nuance should be left to the referenced links, rather than duplicated on this page. I suggest omitting this example and looking for one with fewer nuances. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We can broaden it to general routine news - such as the day-to-day performance of the stock market, etc. A key facet that is necessary in the context here is that numerous sources do not always equal notability as we define it, if at the end of the day all those sources are routine. The nuances of ROUTINE can be left there, but this concept should at least be introduced here. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I disagree. As WP:ROUTINE is an SNG, it is not part of GNG and should not be mentioned in GNG. There is no value in GNG repeating things said by other guidelines. There are too many SNG that purport to restrict GNG in some way to repeat all such criteria in GNG (the list would be impossibly lengthy), and there is no reason to single out that one in particular. It certainly should not be presented as an example of GNG when it is in fact a completely different guideline. The fact that WP:ROUTINE is an SNG indicates there is no consensus for it to apply to topics other than news events, and I certainly would not support its extension as it is meaningless outside of that context. James500 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ROUTINE is part of the Events SNG, but the concept of routine coverage applies to all topics (such as the athletes example Cbl62 gives above). It applies to NORG too (such as routine restaurant reviews from local papers). The specific nature of how routine sources should be avoided on the SNGs can be documented but this page should reference the general nature that routine coverage alone is not sufficient for notability. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree. SNG describe exceptional cases. Concepts that appear in SNG are not necessarily of general application. In fact, their appearance in SNG normally means the opposite. I can't see why this one should be. The "routine restaurant reviews" of ORG has been under heavy fire on WT:ORG for some time. It is probably a drafting error that should read "brief" or something like that. There is, after all, no such thing as a routine object, though there are routine events. James500 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You're missing the point. NEVENT is a relatively new SNG. The concept of routine coverage is of high critical importance to understanding when an event is notable or not, so explicit advice there is proper. But before NEVENT was created, it was generally the case that routine coverage of a topic was not considered sufficient for notability; this just wasn't documented to a great degree but it was accepted practice. Just because the authors of NEVENT decided to codify ROUTINE there does not mean that we never considered routine coverage of a topic before under the GNG or any SNG; it had been in practice many years prior. This is basically providing an example of a long-standing practice. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I disagree. There is no such practice. I have never seen it. Even if people had used this as an excuse at AfD in the past, since consensus depends on weighing the relative merits of arguments, and not on what the majority think, that fact would be irrelevant. The reason that it is not included in GNG is lack of consensus that it should apply generally. James500 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Search the talk archives of this page (WT:N) and you'll find discussion of how routine sources are not used for notability going back to at least 2009. I want to say we actually had "routine coverage" advice in this guideline some years ago but it was lost or changed as part of an update, but I can confidentially state that we definitely dismissed routine coverage for all topics as sole indication of notability prior to NEVENT codifying it. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Please provide links and/or diffs. James500 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am neutral as to whether there is no need to reference WP:ROUTINE at WP:GNG. My point above was simply to ensure that, if it were to be included, any such repetition should be accurate and appropriately capture important nuances. Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • This page currently states routine news reports about a single topic isn't considered significant coverage to meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion, so I think an example on this page is relevant. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The standard for inclusion in question is NEVENT, not GNG. James500 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• James, for someone who worries so much about lawyering, you sure pack a lot of words (and abbreviations/acronyms, and links...) into little meaning. I'm fine with the most recent wording, but we could augment it:

For ordinary sports events and games, a WP:ROUTINE newspaper account comparable to those typically published for such events, is not significant coverage for the creation of a stand-alone article about the event or game. Similarly, WP:ROUTINE coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.) is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of a stand-alone article about individual athletes. Similar concepts apply to typical coverage of daily stock-market activity, and mention of individual stocks in such coverage, etc.

EEng (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's not personalize this. Material specifically about games and events belongs in EVENT. Material specifically about athletes belongs in ATHLETE. Material specifically about stock market coverage belongs in ORG. Not here, complexifying GNG beyond all reason. James500 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not personalizing anything, just telling you that your posts are awfully wordy and reference-laden, which detracts from their usefulness. By your reasoning the first example currently in the guideline (re IBM) shouldn't be there, but rather in WP:CORP, and the second example (re Bill Clinton's high school band) shouldn't be there, but rather in WP:MUSIC. Examples need to be from the real world; as long as they're labeled Examples people will understand their function here. EEng (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the concept of depth (number of facts, amount of information) is simple. It is obvious how those example generalize to other texts (huge book vs wafer thin). The concept of routine coverage is completely nebulous. Those examples do not give me the slightest clue what would be considered routine coverage for other topics. Thus they are not helpful outside an SNG. James500 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The SNGs do not exactly divide up the possible article space; if they did, this argument might make sense. But there are topics that fail to fall into any SNG, so would have to be evaluated as part of the GNG, and routine coverage aspects would still apply. For example, the daily performance of the stock market (not of any specific stock) falls outside any SNG and thus would be judged as a GNG, but as that is mostly routine coverage we would not consider that notable. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a non-notable stock market? Examples might help me understand this line of reasoning. Is the coverage objectionable because it is "routine" or because the data is numerical? James500 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, but there are non-notable days in stock-market activity and non-notable stocks. EEng (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the example does not make it clear that it is not referring to the stock market itself. I think a much better approach would be to create an SNG on chronology. Individual days should be notable, back to some date, probably coinciding with the widespread appearance of suitable periodicals or works with chronological information. Control of spin off articles can take place there. James500 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the bigger picture here. The SNGs are meant as shortcuts to eventually meeting the GNG; they are meant to define conditions for topics that because of meeting certain merits the topic will likely gain significant GNG-quality coverage. They are not wholly separate from the GNG itself. The routine consideration of sources is thus something that is already built into the GNG, only expanded more on in ROUTINE when NEVENT was created. Further, you seems to be asking for highly specific instructions to cover every concievable case, and that's simply not going to happen: WP guidelines (in particular) are not prescriptive but descriptive, and thus the broad advice that routine coverage is not sufficient for notability does belong in the GNG, with more specifics to be provided on those SNGs where this can be more a problem as it is for NEVENTS. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The notion that SNG only exist as a shortcut to GNG is the deletionist interpretation. Consensus, reflected in the wording of N and the last RfC, is that GNG and SNG are complete alternatives. SNG serve other purposes such as eliminating the systematic bias that would result from applying GNG alone, and discouraging crackpot nominations of the "no matter how extensive the coverage is, I'll insist it is not enough" variety (imagine someone using the two examples in GNG to claim that whole chapters of books are not enough) and attempts to systematically push the envelope of what can be deleted under GNG. Highly specific instructions are a good thing: they simplify AfDs enormously. And SNGs already contain them. James500 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not right. the GNG and the SNG are based on the idea that notability is a presumption, that if condition X is met, that the topic is likely appropriate for an encyclopedia. The GNG itself is meant to delineate the type of sources we want to see in an encyclopedia article, under WP:V and WP:NOR (that is, independent, third-party, secondary sources). But even if the GNG is met by the existence of a couple of significant sources it still may be presumptious that a valid encyclopedic article can be made from them, and this is often when topics are merged. SNGs are not inclusion guidelines (this has been reviewed before and rejected by the community), but instead other ways to presume notability by way of being able to demonstrate sourcing now that shows the topic is at least important (such as winning an award) and thus giving them the time under no DEADLINE to find and fill out sources. If someone does a rigorous good faith effort to find sources (and this includes looking for offline and print works in some cases) and cannot come up with anything to expand the article from a stub, then that presumption of notability was wrong and deletion is reasonable. Sine the goal for both GNG and SNG is to demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written, it is expected that SNG-meeting topics can eventually gain the sourcing necessary. In AFDs we give SNG-meeting topics wide berth from deletion unless someone has demonstrated an extensive search for sources and found nothing, but SNG-meeting topics can be deleted even if the SNG is met. That's why the advice on ROUTINE applies everywhere, and why the GNG already includes this and there should be no issue with offering a more specific example. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• J500: "The notion that SNG only exist as a shortcut to GNG is the deletionist interpretation. Consensus, reflected in the wording of N and the last RfC, is that GNG and SNG are complete alternatives. SNG serve other purposes such as eliminating the systematic bias that would result from applying GNG alone." Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, sir. On Wikipedia, the primary measure of notability is the depth of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If you're here to argue that SNGs trump GNG, you've come to the wrong place for anarchy, brother. With most SNGs, we often accept that a small percentage of non-notable topics will slide through with the rest of the notable topics within the defined class, but that does not mean that an overwhelming majority of the individual members of the defined class should not be notable per GNG. GNG is the bedrock of all notability guidelines on Wikipedia, and serves as a backstop for article topics that may not satisfy any particular SNG, but may still satisfy GNG. And, no, that does not make me or any other discussion participant a "deletionist"; it means we believe in meaningful standards for inclusion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally agree with Masem and Dirtlawyer1. SSGs are specialized guides to applying the concept "notability" to specific domains. If application of an SSG results in a determination of notability that does not meet the GNG, something is wrong in the wording or application of either the GNG or the SSG, because that shouldn't happen. All of the SSGs are guides to how to tell what's "probably notable" or "likely notable" or somesuch. They're useful shortcuts and indicators, but not intended as a bypass. Saying the SSG supersedes the GNG is like saying MOS:TABLES supersedes or contradicts WP:MOS -- if it seems that way, there's a problem with the wording of one of them or with your interpretation. Also, James, your use of the word "deletionist" has lost meaning since you characterize everything up to your own position as "deletionist" (or even "[super/ultra/extreme/mega] deletionist") and use preposterous hypotheticals like "no matter how extensive the coverage is, I'll insist it is not enough" nominations. (PS: I'll ask you again to indent your replies. If I understand correctly that not indenting is a principled stand you're taking (similar to how you refuse to bold !votes), I'd just like to add my name to the long list of people whose request you've ignored). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the wording of any policy or guideline suggests that this is true of any SNG that does not expressly otherwise provide. All previous community discussions of which I am aware rejected this proposition. If I am in error, please provide links and/or diffs. I think I can predict, with the assurance of a phrophet, that if another RfC was called on this issue, the community would reject that proposition again. [I won't try to address all your points, but I will answer this: Concern with systematic bias has nothing to do righting great wrongs, and everything to do with concern about about a preponderance of coverage of 'low brow' popular culture topics for people with low or average IQs, against 'high brow' intellectual/academic topics (think topics in advanced mathematics or history) that are felt to be of greater educational and encyclopedic value and more beneficial to intelligent readers. And don't address me as "brother" or "J500", young man. Anarchy indeed!] James500 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking about this IQ business. Please - tell - me - you're - joking. EEng (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nearly all the SNGs have language similar to what one finds at WP:NSPORT#Applicable policies and guidelines, where it is clear that NSPORT is meant to provide criteria to allow inclusion of topics that have a strong chance of being guided towards the GNG. And if you're talking about the difference between "low brow" and "high brow" topics, keep in mind that first and foremost we are an educational work, and what you are calling "high brow" topics are of the most interest of that specific feature. We have readily found plenty of ways to include "low brow" topics by using more mainstream sources as opposed to books and peer-reviews that academic topics generally get. However, we also can't satisfy the more fanatic nature that some of these pop culture topics often will draw in without becoming indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Masem and Rh are both correct (as is Dirtlawyer in his posts below). GNG is the ultimate notability criterion. The SNGs are heuristics that save time by giving a provisional free pass to classes of subjects which experience shows can be expected, with high but not infallible confidence, to be the subject of appropriate coverage e.g. for obvious reasons Nobel laureates almost certainly will have such coverage. But this provisional free pass raises a rebuttable presumption: if after an exhaustive search it turns out such coverage is in fact absent, then the subject is not notable.

When editors in AfD discussions say things like, "People with full-length obituaries in the New York Times are automatically notable", they're really talking about this rebuttable presumption. No one and nothing are "automatically" and absolutely notable, regardless of lack of coverage.

There are two kinds of editors: those who divide editors into two kinds, and those who don't. The ones who divide editors into two kinds, remarkably, call themselves "Inclusionists", who imagine themselves opposed to an imaginary group they call the "Deletioninsts". These so-called Deletionists, however, are aware of no such division, being aware only of editors who do or don't understand and adhere to notability policy and guidelines. The fundamental role of GNG, and provisional-rebuttable role of SNGs, is just the way things are, not a deletionist conspiracy. EEng (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The SNGs are heuristics that save time by giving a provisional free pass to classes of subjects which experience shows can be expected... But this provisional free pass raises a rebuttable presumption. That is the "AND" interpretation of the Notability guidelines - that a topic must meet both the GNG and any applicable SNG to be notable; but as James500 rightly points out, that interpretation failed to gain consensus in the last RfC, and every time it has been proposed. The interpretation with consensus is that each SNG is enough on its own to establish notability even where GNG is not strictly met, i.e. the "OR" interpretation where meeting either one is enough.

For generality, the GNG excludes a whole lot of information sources because in a general case they could be used to support inclusion of any kind of crap. However, the SNGs do allow for alternate information corpus that can be considered reliable and comprehensive in particular domains, even if they don't meet the strict standard of third party, independent, secondary sources. Government censuses, catalogs of various kinds, etc. can be trusted to support articles for geographic places, buildings, schools... thanks to their systematic and reliable nature, even though the sources don't meet GNG definition.

Thus there exist topics for which there is enough information from those alternate sources to write neutral articles; but this principle cannot be generalized because that kind of sources does not exist for all domains, and thus the general guideline needs to use a more strict criterion than those for specific subdomains which have been vetted by editors. Diego (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you turn what I said into "the 'AND' interpreatation". I said nothing of the sort. It's not SNG AND GNG -- and neither is it SNG OR GNG. It's just GNG (but we accept SNG temporarily -- in fact, indefinitely unless and until clear and convincing evidence arises that GNG can never be met). As with any neatly packaged scheme, there are exceptions e.g. populated places get an essentially permanent free pass because of the faith that there's coverage somewhere even if we can't find it.

I don't know what RfC you're talking about.

EEng (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC I referred to was Esquivalience's proposal for a complete (awful) rewrite which was very quickly snowball opposed by myself and IIRC, others including Michig, Dream Focus and BabbaQ. That was some time in the late spring or summer of this year. By the way, the level of indentation you are using is not very easy to read on the mobile site in portrait on a small screen. It is making the thread very long, and a higher level of indentation will likely be totally unreadable. James500 (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That an "awful" rewrite didn't pass doesn't tell us much. And you may need to use a more appropriate device. EEng (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between where one is making the presumption of notability - which means either the GNG or an SNG has to be met - and the long-term evaluation of an article after exhausting possible sources, where core content policies eventually must be met which only the GNG alludes to (but itself not always sufficient). SNGs cannot override WP:V, NOR or NPOV, and most of the claims SNGs provide are through sources that would otherwise fail these policies in the short term, but we allow them to be kept to give time for sources to be found and developed. But if at the end of the day the only sources that can be found about, for example, an academic professor is their bio on a college webpage, that's failing WP:V and deletion should ultimately happen. So for presumption of notability, it is GNG or SNG, but for long-term justification of that presumption, the GNG is the only real route. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If that were true, we would have removed the majority of articles in Category:Populated places by location and Category:Schools, or any other category automatically populated from a database of trusted data. But we have not, therefore that reasoning is incorrect. Diego (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

First: WP:N is a guideline, not policy, so there are clear exceptions. Populated places has always been one for two reasons: that consensus has decided that one of en.wiki's functions should be also as a gazetteer, documenting such places, and secondly, that if there is a populated place of modern times, there is going to be some documented history about that place that may take a heck of a long time to find, so there's no reason to push for meeting notability on those places. Schools are a different beast because they fall under WP:OUTCOMES, and attempts to define school notability have failed a few times, because there are significant differences between geographical regions to how schools are handled, so that's one of those areas we know we need to address but it is nearly impossible to agree on a method to address them. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• If routine coverage of events does not constitute significant coverage of events, as the guideline currently states, then it seems awfully reasonable to say that the same routine coverage of events would not constitute significant coverage of the people, places, and things involved in the events. The way we talk about routine coverage of events shouldn't make it seem like events are the only things being covered in routine coverage of events. To stick with the sports example (and I don't have a strong opinion on that particular example), routine coverage of sports events is also routine coverage of the athletes, teams, arena/venue, crowd, plays used, scores, host city, sports season, brand of equipment used, etc. -- not just the event. It's the same principle, so I agree it makes sense to have it somewhere in the GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry to be late to the discussion, y'all, but I just saw the most recent reversion of the attempted addition of the WP:ROUTINE exposition regarding coverage of sports events. I support it. Most coverage of individual sports games and matches is exactly what should be included within the ambit of WP:ROUTINE. Most NFL games get two or three paragraphs in every major newspaper in the country on Monday morning, and the same for top-25 Division I college football teams on Sundays. Of course, the Atlanta Falcons or Georgia Bulldogs get complete 1000 to 1500-word articles for every game in the sports section of The Atlanta Journal Constitution and that coverage is still 100% WP:ROUTINE. Coverage of sports events -- when used to divine the notability of sports events -- is best viewed through the lens of not only WP:ROUTINE, but also WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. A college football game may be on the front page of every sports section in the country on Sunday morning, even heralded in the hyperbole of sports-writing as "unforgettable," "historic," "unprecedented" or "an instant classic," and a month later it's completely forgotten by mainstream, independent media sources. Personally, I had no problem with the suggested text here: [6], although its meaning would clearer and cleaner if limited to the event, and not expanded to include the participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• There is an aspect of routine coverage that I think deserves to be discussed further: what if there is repeated (ie on-going) routine coverage"?

I would agree that, taken individually, each routine coverage mention is not enough to establish notability... but what if the subject is routinely mentioned in lots of sources (over a reasonable period of time), and we take all this routine coverage as a group? I think there is a reasonable argument for saying that this on-going and repeated routine coverage would establish at least some degree of notability. Thoughts on this? Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Blueboar: If there's routine coverage of something, it often is ongoing. High school sports, for example, is always covered by local papers without questioning whether or not each individual game/player is significant. Different athletes, ball fields, plays, crowd chants, vendors, etc. might be mentioned each time, but that the same athlete is mentioned several times in multiple editions of the same routine coverage means it's still routine coverage. I can't tell if this is a comment about the specific proposal/discussion above or a general question about routine coverage? I hope you don't mind I removed the separate sub-heading and moved it in with the discussion for clarity of presentation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds reasonable indeed. What kind of "group" routine coverage are you thinking about? Going on by Dirtlawyer1's idea above that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is relevant, repeated coverage through an extended period of time would count towards the notability of the content, even if it appears only on newspaper sections that would be considered "routine" if they covered the content just one time. WP:NEWSPAPER also says that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", so an event that is not forgotten but repeatedly remembered does have some enduring effect; therefore it seems that your idea is sound.

Notability is all about having enough neutral content to write an article about the topic. If the event is remembered and mentioned by reliable sources way after it first happened, they have had time to reflect on its meaning and to correct any misconceptions that might have occurred on the first coverage; therefore the content will have been cleaned up from any initial bias, in a way that one-shot routine news coverage would have not. Diego (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe a general assumption can be made that continued routine coverage equals significant coverage. The key aspect is the requirements for news coverage is different than the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Newspapers cover a city's weather everyday, because its readers expect it; this doesn't mean "Weather in city X" should be a Wikipedia article. In a similar fashion, local newspapers are expected to cover local sports; no editorial judgment is being made regarding the noteworthiness of an athlete who is mentioned in routine accounts of local sporting events, or of the playing venue where dozens of games could be covered every month. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree there's some issues here too. I have seen and tried to nominate some local murder-involved crimes that happened that had some national attention at the time it happened, but the only ongoing coverage is the anniversary of the crime in local sources that reflect on the impact of the murders on the victim's loved ones. I would call this routine coverage, and the type that does not demonstrate a long tail for notability. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• FYI, Diego, my comments regarding WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE were really limited to the notability of events (as is the particular guideline), because news events (including sports events) often have a very short-term burst of intense coverage, and later nothing. There is an intersection of guidelines where WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE all play a role in evaluating the enduring notability of an event. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blueboar's point is one of the reasons (and there are many others) why the "routine coverage" argument is a fallacy. The fact that a topic receives regular (ie periodic) coverage, and lots of it, indicates that the topic is more, not less, notable. Let's not introduce routine coverage nonsense into GNG, particularly when we already have perfectly good guidelines, NTEMP and NOTNEWS, to deal with brief bursts of news coverage. I should also point out, in view of Rhododendrites' comment, that local coverage is a separate issue and that its exclusion GNG has also been rejected in the past for lack of consensus. Any attempt to introduce such things is a pipe dream that will never happen and can only serve to waste our time. James500 (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Advice about routine sources and notability is already part of this guideline, it's been there for a while (see Wikipedia:Notability#Events). --MASEM (t) 21:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That isn't part of GNG. It is a separate part of the guideline and it only applies to events, which are a special case anyway because of the SNG. QED. I'm not arguing (yet) that this shouldn't continue to apply to events (as I've not had time to review and consider that) only that it should not be extended further. James500 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@James500, EEng, Dirtlawyer1, and Masem: Coming back to James's statement "Consensus, reflected in the wording of N and the last RfC, is that GNG and SNG are complete alternatives." It sounds like the RfC he was talking about was Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_57#Rewritten_notability_guideline, a complete rewrite of the whole guideline which was withdrawn after 4 opposes. Fairly standard wikilawyering to try to generalize to say that means there is consensus opposed to a specific change he included in that rewrite. However, there was a very specific RfC question that saw a lot of participation a few years back: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. The wording of the relevant proposal was:

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC and WP:Notability (people) override the general notability guideline, WP:N in areas where specific notability guidelines are applicable. That is, if an article on a topic covered by a specific notability guideline passes WP:N but does not pass the specific notability guideline in question, the topic is deemed not notable. Similarly, if an article on a topic covered by a specific notability guideline passes that specific notability guideline in question but does not pass WP:N, the topic is deemed notable.

The overwhelming consensus was opposed tho that idea that an SNG can override the GNG. Only 19% of participants supported the idea. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) That discussion took place more than 7 years ago, when notability was recently introduced and in a state of flux. It is very unlikely to be relevant today as it was too long ago (consensus can change) and there have been too many discussions, particularly at the SNG themselves, such as WP:NGEO, since then. I could also point you to a far more recent RfC at WT:42 that roundly rejected that proposition. (2) Consensus isn't a majority vote. It is determined by weighing the relative merits of arguments. It makes no difference whether it was 19% or 90%. (3) Invoking discussions that are ancient history and invoking raw numbers of voters are standard wikilawyering. James500 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) You repeatedly make definitive statements about what is and what is not, making vague references to past discussions and absolute declarations of what there is and is not consensus for. Above you claimed "Consensus, reflected in the wording of N and the last RfC, is that GNG and SNG are complete alternatives." When asked what RfC, you pointed to this, a complete rewrite that was withdrawn after 4 opposes. Trying to say that the rejection of a total rewrite is consensus about the question of whether SNGs can override the GNG is ridiculous. Now you're saying "I could also point you to a far more recent RfC at WT:42 that roundly rejected that proposition." Well ok then. Right now there are no RfCs at WT:42, so I looked through the archives. The only one I see is this one on whether the page should be an information page or an essay. In that RfC there was no consensus to change the page type. ...is that what you're referring to as "roundly reject[ing] that proposition" about SNGs and GNG?? Or did you mean to say "There have been, at some point, some people who had a local discussion on the talk page of a user essay and they said some things that are like what I'm saying now"? (i.e. not an RfC but some local discussion with nowhere close to the awareness and participation of e.g. that "compromise" RfC, which, old as it may be, we would have no reason to think is incorrect without another similar thread showing that consensus has changed). If you want your absolute declarations based on past RfCs/consensus to have credibility, you really need to start linking. (2) ... (3) .... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not ridiculous when the fact that the rewrite sought to subordinate SNGs to GNGs was a reason why it was rejected, repeatedly given in the rejection rationales. Likewise, at the RfC at WT:42, the issue was whether the page accurately reflected the notability guidelines that it was supposed to summarise. The consensus was that it did not, that its attempted subordination of SNG to GNG was a reason for that, and that there was thus no consensus for the information page template to remain. That RfC consensus necessarily involved a finding that SNG were not subordinate to GNG. And of course the consensus at NGEO is the exact opposite of what you are saying now. The RfC you have pointed to is too old to be relevant. On top of that, you are assessing consensus incorrectly (by counting numbers alone). And the terms of the RfC are not capable of supporting the argument you advance. That proposal sought to subordinate GNG (and the rest of N as well) to SNG. But I have not argued that. All I have argued is that SNG are not subordinate to GNG. The most obvious problem with that proposal is the sentence that reads "That is, if an article on a topic covered by a specific notability guideline passes WP:N but does not pass the specific notability guideline in question, the topic is deemed not notable." I have not argued that there is consensus for that proposition, in the absence of express words in the SNG (whereas under that proposal express words word not have been required eg if the SNG said "A is notable if X" without further explanation, under that proposal it would be construed to mean "A is notable if and only if X" (making GNG irrelevant) whereas consensus is to read it as "A is notable if either X or it satisfies GNG"), indeed, the wording of N is incompatible with that proposition. Also that proposal is concerned with the relationship between N and SNG, not the relationship between GNG and SNG. Accordingly the failure of that proposal proves nothing about a scenario to which it does not relate. And why did you not echo notify User:Diego Moya who agrees with me above when you sent notifications to everyone who disagrees? James500 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You pointed to RfCs as definitive proof, I pointed out that anybody who actually clicks on them can see they're very clearly not, but you're staying the course. So I guess what else can be said here? I forget the term for that tactic large corporations are sometimes said to use where they continuously throw procedural and rhetorical hurdles of wildly varying merit and relevance at a lawsuit to delay it for so long the other side runs out of funds/time/energy... But it's true I should've pinged Diego Moya - I scanned for people who mentioned the RfC above and it looks like he should've been in there instead of Masem. Oh well. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Back to discussion of the proposed text for Example 3

The most recent proposed text (to be added to the Examples) is:

For ordinary sports events and games, a WP:ROUTINE newspaper account comparable to those typically published for such events, is not significant coverage for the creation of a stand-alone article about the event or game. Similarly, WP:ROUTINE coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.) is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of a stand-alone article about individual athletes. Similar concepts apply to typical coverage of daily stock-market activity, and mention of individual stocks in such coverage, etc.

(Fellow editors, feel free to tinker with the wording, but please do so by posting your revised wording at the end of the !votes so far, so it's clear which exact wording each editor was commenting on.) EEng (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support because, when added to the two examples already present, it helps editors understand that volume of coverage isn't all that matters. EEng (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• I prefer a shorter, easier-to-grasp example be used. The list is only intended to give an idea of what is considered to be significant coverage. Having long, detailed examples gives the impression that the list is intended to be exhaustive. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Tentative Support - Thinking about it, I don't love the stock market example, though. It's just less broadly familiar to people than sports coverage and thus potentially confusing. It also doesn't seem necessary because extra examples seem to be making up for my bigger point: if we're going to give an example of routine coverage, routine coverage should be mentioned in the sentence about "significant coverage" that we're giving examples of in the first place. This example of routine coverage would then have more context (and would help explain the concept). So, for example "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Routine coverage and trivial mentions do not constitute significant coverage, but the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Examples:" followed by the two existing examples and the above (preferably without the stock market example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking back our new "third example" did balloon very quickly. Let's cut it back (including removing some of the text Cbl added, the purpose of which I don't quite understand -- Cbl, feel free to explain why it's needed), and work in Rh's change to the introductory text:

Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it Routine coverage and trivial mentions do not constitute significant coverage, but the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Examples:

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial.
• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• A WP:ROUTINE newspaper account of an ordinary sports event, comparable to those typically published for such events, is not significant coverage of the event or the people or places involved.

References

In particular, I removed Cbl's text about "for the creation of a standalone article"; I think that's trying to clarify that ROUTINE coverage can be used for article content even if not for notability, but that's already implicit in the fact that this whole discussion of significant coverage is clearly for notability purposes only, not for limiting article content.

New thoughts? EEng (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I did make a change though. The example said "...is not significant coverage of the event or its participants" then had a second sentence about passing mentions of athletes, statistics, etc. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it seems confusing to include its participants and then list athletes separate (as though they aren't participants). Maybe I misunderstand some part of the intent there, in which case, of course, change what I wrote, but I don't think the second sentence is even necessary if we change the first to just say "...is not significant coverage of the event or the people or places involved." Curious what others think, though. Note that I would support the above with or without my edits, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. EEng (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Cbl62 to make sure I haven't overpruned something he feels is important. EEng (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• My proposed language was intended to ensure that we are simply memorializing existing policy rather than expanding it or creating new policy. The two relevant guidelines are:

* Events. WP:ROUTINE is a subpart of the guideline on notability of events. This has been applied universally and strictly in the sports context to mean that sports coverage is not significant coverage to create articles on individual sporting events unless there is something of truly enduring historic significance about the game.

* Athletes. WP:NSPORTS is the SNG for athletes. It does not bar the use of sports coverage (most of which is game coverage) to establish notability of athletes. It does, however, provide that they are notablie "if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." If expanded in the manner suggested, game coverage could not be used at all to establish athlete notability. The rough working rule I operate under is that passing references of athletes in sports coverage aren't enough, but sometimes game coverage includes detailed coverage of an athlete's unusual accomplishments, and that type of detailed coverage absolutely can and should be considered in assessing whether an athlete should have a stand-alone article. Eliminating game coverage as an entire class would be a drastic and IMO unwarranted change in the notability standards for athletes. Such a change should not be made without full input from all relevant sporting wiki-projects. Accordingly, my proposed language was intended to keep the reference to a restatement of existing policy.

I have long worried about athletes being held to a disparate, stricter standard than other persons, such as entertainers and businessman. A rule stating that coverage of sporting events can't be used to establish athlete notability would be akin to a rule that coverage of TV shows and films can't be used to establish notability of entertainers, or that coverage of mergers and acquisitions can't be used to establish the notability of businessmen. The rule for notability of persons under GNG should not be to exclude wholesale certain types of coverage, thus creating a major bias against a particular class of persons, but rather to focus on the depth and detail in the coverage of a person. If a person has received non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources, that is what matters. Excluding game coverage altogether, even where it includes detailed coverage of a particular athlete, is fundamentally inconsistent with GNG and our broader notability principles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My GOD you are FAST! Can your concerns be addressed by tinkering with the wording (in a new copy here below)? EEng (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: I thought the language proposed above was reasonable in restating existing policy. Here it is again with some minor tweaking:

For ordinary sports events and games, WP:ROUTINE newspaper accounts comparable to those typically published for such events, is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of stand-alone articles about individual games. Similarly, routine, non-detailed coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.) is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of stand-alone articles about individual athletes. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That I think is fine with tweaks. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone who spends more than half his wiki-time editing sports-related articles, I am much more sanguine than Cbl62 about better describing the meaning of WP:ROUTINE coverage in the context of ordinary post-game coverage. More than once in the past 5 years, I have seen industrious sports editors stitch together three or four one-sentence to one-paragraph mentions of athletes in post-game articles and then vociferously claim the athlete was "notable" per GNG. I have also seen sports editors find a one-sentence mention of a so-called "rivalry" in a ROUTINE post-game wire service article and then conflate that into notability for the "rivalry" game series. I would suggest that the solution is to better define what is ROUTINE and what is "significant" per GNG and provide better examples of both at WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. IMO, the problem has not been excluding clearly notable athletes and coaches, but finding ever more aggressive ways of including non-notable athletes and coaches by wiki-lawyering widely varied meanings and standards for "routine" and "significant" coverage based on the wildly subjective opinions of different AfD participants. Providing more and better examples of "routine" and "significant" coverage would go a long way to creating a more consistent standard of notability for our athlete and coach biographies and other sports-related articles. Frankly, it's long overdue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Similarly, routine, non-detailed coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.)" - This verbiage is far too similar to the existing vaguely phrased standard, which continues to be treated as a threshold minimum standard of coverage for athlete notability. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard AfD participants state that absolutely minimal coverage of an athlete in ROUTINE post-game coverage is evidence of notability because it exceeds a "box score". It needs to be tighter, and I believe the best way to proceed is to provide more concrete examples of "routine" and "significant" coverage rather than re-write the same generalities we already have. A three-sentence mention of a wide receiver's performance in game, including a quote from the coach or athlete, and mentions of the athlete's class, age and hometown, as well as recounting his game performance statistics, may still be absolutely ROUTINE, but that is the sort of coverage upon which the notability of many athlete bios are built. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

* Dirtlawyer and I agree in most cases and disagree in other cases as to how GNG should be read for athletes. This is probably not the best forum to rewrite policy on athlete notability. Nor do I think that was the intention. If the discussion is going to veer in the direction of rewriting policy, the discussion needs to be much broader and all applicable projects notified. Cbl62 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm only involved in couple of the sports projects; in those ones, I haven't seen an issue with a truly unusual or exceptional event being treated as non-notable due to game coverage only. That being said, nor can I recall an example where such an event did not garner additional coverage. Anything exceptional will typically have coverage by columnists that qualifies as significant coverage. Thus I'm not too worried about trying to be exhaustive in an example on this page. I would prefer working out all the details either in the section on "Events", or on the referenced page regarding routine coverage. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose of EEng's version of 07:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC) and anything like it. The introduction of any concept of routine coverage into GNG is a terrible idea for many reasons. Nor do I think it a good thing to discuss the wording of possible changes when the very concept lacks consensus and clearly isn't going to achieve consensus. But, leaving that aside, the wording of the proposed changed is totally unsatisfactory even in its own terms. It does not provide any definition whatsoever of "routine". Much less does it do what it needs to do, which is to provide a definition that is restrictive or exhaustive in the sense of providing a clear limit or boundary for what is considered "routine", a bright line to prevent that particular envelope being pushed. The example is hopeless. It gives no assistance whatsoever to determining what is routine outside the particular case to which it relates. It has no relevance to anything other than sports events. (Thus it is of no use outside an SNG.) It is quite vague even in that context (ordinary, typical, comparable?) We are not even given an example of coverage (preferably periodical, and especially newspaper coverage) that is not routine. This is manna for deletionist wikilawyers. They can now indiscriminately insist that all periodical coverage whatsoever, and perhaps all other coverage, is routine. And they can do this in the middle of the editor retention emergency, which is being caused by that kind of thing. James500 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Back to discussion of the proposed text for Example 3 (2)

Incorporating Cbl's tweaked third example (above), the text would now read:

Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it Routine coverage and trivial mentions do not constitute significant coverage, but the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Examples:

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial.
• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• For ordinary sports events and games, WP:ROUTINE newspaper accounts comparable to those typically published for such events, is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of stand-alone articles about individual games. Similarly, routine, non-detailed coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.) is not considered to be significant coverage for the creation of stand-alone articles about individual athletes.

References

Cbl62, I don't understand why we need to keep repeating considered to be significant coverage for the creation of stand-alone articles. Isn't this entire significant coverage bullet about "for the creation of stand-alone articles"? Why does it need to be said in this one example? Also, why do we need considered to be? Can't we just say, "is not significant coverage of individual games", and "is not significant coverage of individual athletes"? It would cut a lot of verbiage.

EEng (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No objection to your proposed pruning. Cbl62 (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is going swimmingly:

Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it Routine coverage and trivial mentions do not constitute significant coverage, but the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Examples:

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial.
• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• For ordinary sports events and games, WP:ROUTINE newspaper accounts comparable to those typically published for such events, is not significant coverage of individual games. Similarly, routine, non-detailed coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.) is not significant coverage of individual athletes.

EEng (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the introductory language changing the core language of GNG as follows: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it Routine coverage and trivial mentions do not constitute significant coverage, but the subject This will open a huge can of worms as deletionists argue that all game coverage (perhaps even all sports coverage) is "routine" and therefore not sufficient coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, don't everyone panic all at once. Rhododendrites, in the interests of getting a useful third example into the text, can you give up your Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it Routine coverage and trivial mentions do not constitute significant coverage, but the subject change? EEng (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Events" section on this page states For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. So I don't see any new language being introduced that will result in new deletions, and has been mentioned above, there is in practice no issue with establishing sufficient significant coverage with Wikipedia's current sports content. Nonetheless, I really think a simpler example will better match the other two examples, which are much shorter. isaacl (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) Actually the deletionists will go much further than Cbl62 suggests. They will argue, for example, that obituaries in the New York Times (presently regarded as a 'gold standard' source) are routine because the NYT publishes them regularly and in large numbers (I assume they are published every day, which is certain to result in them being labelled 'routine'). [One does already hear them making ludicrous comments to the effect that a person isn't notable for having died, whereas the obituaries are in fact published because the person was notable during their life. And we can expect more of that kind of nonsense under the proposed change.] No periodical coverage whatsoever would be safe. Even without the introductory language, the example alone will probably produce that effect. (2) Since the "Events" section only presently applies to events, the proposed change clearly would introduce new language with respect to other topics, and presumably would result in new deletions of topics other than events. Certainly we will face indiscriminate mass nominations of such topics the moment it is introduced. [Note: I typed this answer out earlier but I failed to add it by accident.] James500 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Query - @EEng and Cbl62: From where was this verbiage drawn: "e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc."? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a paraphrase of the language used in WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Regarding '...argue that all game coverage (perhaps even all sports coverage) is "routine" and therefore not sufficient coverage.' It seems like if we're going to use sports as an example, there would be a way to retain the mention of routine coverage in the main line but make it clear with the example. The following alternative is a response to this as well as in response to a separate concern that the third example is more complex and broad than the other two (e.g. example 1 is a specific book, example 2 is a specific article, example 3 is a set). What about getting a little more specific? Note that the two links here are for the sake of including examples -- I chose them pretty arbitrarily:

"A routine news story about an ordinary sports event which covers the game in an unexceptional way is not significant coverage of that game.(link) Similarly, unexceptional coverage of athletes in routine articles or statistics compilations is not significant coverage of that athlete.(link)."

That said, however, and in response to EEng, as I said above, I would support adding an example of routine coverage here even without my proposed changes to the main text or example text -- but I think changing the main bullet is inevitable and we would save time and effort in the long run by addressing it now (i.e. I think it's asking for problems not to explicitly mention routine outside of the example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, since Cbl finds the "main bullet" change concerning (and note that's a change to the policy text itself, rather than just the addition of an example) I appreciate your letting it go, at least for now, so that we can focus on this third example.

As to that third "example", the idea of substituting something concrete for the current abstraction seems like a good one. And maybe it doesn't need to be sports, if that's part of the hangup. Either way... any ideas, anyone? EEng (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I am opposed to the introduction of "routine" as a concept because this is not our actual policy. There are numerous events which are quite routine but we cover them assiduously. These include sporting events, elections and weather, which are all to be regularly found on the main page in WP:ITN and WP:FA. Recent examples include United States presidential election, 1880, Typhoon Gay, 2015 Davis Cup, 103rd Grey Cup, &c. What people seem to be striving for here is a concept of importance but that won't fly either because most of the topics we cover are not especially important. There are some folk who would toss out anything that isn't vital. That might have been a good idea at the outset but we're long past that point now. Wikipedia now has 5 million articles and counting. Please deal with it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Andrew, I think you're missing the point entirely: "routine" is a term of art on Wikipedia, it has a long-standing history in AfD practice and the notability guidelines, and it's not going away. Flatly opposing the concept will get you nowhere; arguing over its proper application is an open question. Using your examples above, "routinely" scheduled events (elections, major sporting events, etc.) are not the same as WP:ROUTINE coverage of events. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm used to people citing WP:MILL at AfD but that's an essay and so counts for little. I don't recall WP:ROUTINE being cited to the same extent and checked. It has been cited 226 times at AfD in six years, which isn't much. The first case I come to is Oyster Run where it does not seem to have been decisive. Browsing the list, I see one I recognise: List of bespectacled baseball players and again that's a keeper. No, I stand by my !vote and oppose any extension of this concept as contrary to our actual and general practise. Andrew D. (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible Example 4/Obituaries

• How about, as a third example, something to the effect that an obituary in the New York Times is plainly significant coverage of a person, but not necessarily significant coverage of their death considered as a separate topic? I could live with that. James500 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting idea, though it's complicated by the fact that an obituary doesn't necessarily count as significant coverage for that person, much less his/her death specifically. Can we call that Example 4?

For Example 3, I was hoping we could stay with something that illustrates that sheer bulk (sentence vs. book) isn't the only criterion. Also, I like someone's suggestion of concrete examples instead of abstract statements. EEng (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We should be careful on the obit part, or at least clarify the difference between the regular pages of obits in a newspaper, and the type of obits that the NYTimes writes for important people ala [7]. I'd further hesitate that there may be a case where an article is credited about a person on the weight of one or more such obits like the linked article where there is a clear vector for potential expansion if someone does the ground work in finding sources. As long as we're clear that we are considering the daily obit page of a newspaper, in contrast to these more in-depth obits for important people, that's good. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A key distinction is between (1) true obituaries (e.g., this and this), over which a major metropolitan daily typically assigns a reporter and exercises editorial control, and (2) paid death notices (e.g., this) or mere republications of same by local newspapers (e.g., this and this). The former is significant coverage. The latter is not. Of course, there is a lot of gray in between the extremes where reasonable minds may differ as to how significant the coverage is. Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I share Cbl's concerns regarding "obituaries," which may vary from 1,500-word life and career summaries in The New York Times which are professionally researched, sourced and edited -- sometimes well in advance of the anticipated death of notable persons -- to the typical one-paragraph death notices found in The Delta Catfish Wrapper, which usually mention surviving family, funeral arrangements and sending charitable contributions in lieu of flowers. Such coverage may or may not be significant depending on the substance and detail provided. The problem of paid-for obituaries is a distinctly separate problem: they are a form of paid advertising, and should be given very little or no weight in determining notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• To understand why I made the suggestion at the top of this thread, you probably need to read this comment, which I failed to add earlier by accident: [8]. I was primarily concerned to give an extreme example of newspaper coverage that should plainly not be attacked as routine, not to get into a debate over which obituaries are significant. James500 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Continue discussion of Example 4/Obits here

Back to discussion of the proposed text for Example 3 (3)

The text now reads:

Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Examples:

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial.
• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• For ordinary sports events and games, WP:ROUTINE newspaper accounts comparable to those typically published for such events, is not significant coverage of individual games. Similarly, routine, non-detailed coverage of athletes (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.) is not significant coverage of individual athletes.
• A possible Example 4 re obituaries, under discussion in previous sectiion

Please jump back two sections to see the current concerns re the sports example. Let's keep this rolling. EEng (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Collapse personal attack

Oppose EEng seems to be trying to wear people down by endless iteration. Let's not keep this rolling; let's kill it completely. The proposed text is totally unacceptable because it would tend to disqualify routine sporting events such as The Boat Race 1993 which are not just accepted on Wikipedia but are featured. This is clearly wishful thinking rather than an accurate summary of our established and accepted practise. Prescriptive law-making is not the way we do this - see WP:NOTLAW, "the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." Andrew D. (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC) (ec) Pardon me? A number of editors have spent a lot of time trying to improve the presentation of the notability policy, without changing its meaning by adding examples. If you'd read the discussion to this point, which you clearly haven't, you'd see that the most recent suggestions are to (a) replace the sports context with something completely different and/or (b) swap in a specific example instead of the current abstract statement. No one's trying to kill your precious boat races, so if you want to help you should suggest something for (a) or (b), or make a change to the wording of the current text, so as to address your concern. EEng (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC) The point at issue here is the paragraph about routine coverage. That's not an example, it tries to introduce a new principle to the idea of notability. A list of examples is not the place to do this. I don't think the concept belongs here at all. Notability is the idea that something has been noticed. What you're pushing here is the idea that, even though something has been noticed, we still shouldn't have it. That's some other idea, best conveyed by shortcuts such as WP:TOOMUCH, WP:NOTSTATBOOK, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It doesn't belong here. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not "pushing" anything, Mr. Too-Much-In-A-Hurry-To-Get-His-Facts-Straight. I've just been laying out current version of the proposal (incorporating changes suggested since last time) periodically, to avoid confusion over what's being discussed. I didn't suggest or write this third example -- others did. So take your "EEng seems to be trying to wear people down by endless iteration" nonsense and go soak your head. EEng (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Andrew, in broad brush strokes, I agree that notability is based on the premise that "something has been noticed," but the concept as embodied in the guidelines is more nuanced and more detailed, and the general principle is subject to various caveats. To elaborate, notability means not only "something has been noticed," but that it has been noticed in the right places, and that notice has been documented in particular forms. EEng, if we need to slow down to get Andrew over this hump, that's okay. Or at least make sure that Andrew understands what we're actually talking about, in particular the circumstances to which WP:ROUTINE is supposed to apply. If we can't agree after that exercise so be it, but Andrew does deserve to understand what we are really trying to do here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC) I'm all for that, but his "pushing" comment pissed me off. Again, I do wonder whether we should (a) shift the example to a topic area other than sports, and/or (b) give an actual example, as IBM and Clinton examples are. Dirtlawyer1, I leave it to you to decide when salvaging the current Example 3 text is hopeless, and (a)/(b) should be done. EEng (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC) There's clearly a distinction between, say, the reporting associated with any specific non-playoff American football game, and the reporting associated with the Super Bowl, though both can be considered routine in that they happen like clockwork. We clearly have established practice that separate the two, but it's not readily documented, and we need to find a way to make that clear. Only to offer the idea on brainstorming: to me the scale of ROUTINE is to imply things that happen on a daily or weekly basis, which clearly make most non-playoff games in most sports unremarkable but the championship rounds notable. Another way to think about this is that routine coverage is the type that is "fill in the blanks", where repeated stories all hit the same points, so things like regular games, sports stat books when talking about players, stock market performances on a day-to-day basis, death notices, and so forth. I don't know if these are good distinguishing things, but I feel that defined what is "routine" will be near impossible but we can define what is outside the grey area as well, but for that, we also might need a seperate guideline page. What I will say is that this does start dropping out of considering that WP is not a source of indiscriminate information, and that might help to define what "routine" should be better. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure about The Boat Race, but the other examples you cited above have non-routine coverage, and so remain unaffected by current practice regarding coverage of sport seasons with routine games. isaacl (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Andrew, you're a smart guy: slow down, and re-read what I wrote above. You are hopelessy confusing two different things. "Routine coverage" is a Wikipedia term of art, referenced by WP:ROUTINE, that refers to the typical day-after coverage of daily news events (see, e.g., WP:NOTNEWS). It does not refer to the routinely scheduled events themselves, such as sports events; otherwise, regularly scheduled Super Bowls and FIFA World Cup championships would be treated as "routine" when they clearly are not. Full-length books have been written about the Super Bowl, World Cup, and, yes, the Boat Race. Major events like these are notable beyond any doubt per GNG; they not only receive routine day-after coverage in newspapers and other media, they are the subject of feature articles, histories and retrospectives weeks months, and even years after the fact. None of that constitutes routine coverage per WP:ROUTINE. Without WP:ROUTINE, every high school football championship in America, and every regular season MLB baseball game, NBA basketball game, NFL football game, NHL hockey game and NCAA Division I college football game would be "notable" and eligible for a stand-alone article. You need to wrap your head around what WP:ROUTINE is and is not, because you clearly do not fully understand what it is. It is most certainly not understood to exclude a major annual sporting event such as the Boat Race. Relax. See also WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, which conceptually overlaps and complements WP:ROUTINE, and suggests that non-routine coverage is that which exceeds the typical news cycle. If a news event is still getting in-depth coverage in a week after it happened, it's probably notable; if its getting non-trivial coverage one year after the fact, it's almost certainly notable. It's the difference between the prime minister receiving front-page coverage of today's campaign speech (speech probably not notable), and the media still discussing Churchill's "some form of Gestapo" gaffe 70 years after the 1945 general election (notable beyond all doubt). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC) EEng seems to be trying to wear people down by endless iteration - a gross assumption of bad faith. what EEng is doing is trying to keep this large thread focused on particular tasks based on the directions it moves. Talking about proposed wording is always messy, so it's helpful when someone tries to prevent it from becoming too diffuse or to splinter off on too many tangents. We'll see if it succeeds, but it's most definitely not "wearing people down". If anything, it's refusing to let people wear down the conversation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Problem - Having addressed Andrew's concerns (hopefully), I have one of my own. I think the insertion of these examples is a horrible idea: "(e.g., passing mentions in game coverage, statistical compilations, box scores, etc.)". These were based on a couple included in single NSPORTS specific notability guideline for college sports (WP:NCOLLATH, and paraphrased and expanded by Cbl62. No other sport-specific SNG utilizes anything resembling these examples. While these examples were clearly intended to be the most trivial and easily disqualified examples of "routine" coverage that no one should ever dispute as "significant". Instead, in college sports-related-AfDs, some editors often treat these clearly trivial examples of routine coverage as the minimum threshold -- if coverage exceed a box score, list of scores, list of statistics, then it is "significant". That was never intended, but that has become the oft-heard argument. By including these trivial examples of routine coverage in GNG, we will likely be dumbing down the standard for all athletes in all sports, and by implication all other subjects as well. We need to either (a) omit these examples entirely, or (b) we need to include examples of "routine coverage" that exceed these trivial examples so that editors seeking guidance will understand that "routine coverage" may mean substantially more than a "box score" or a "passing mention." This was why I raised my original concern above; hopefully, I have articulated it better on this attempt. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The examples given should be clear examples. In the world of GNG, whether we're talking about obituaries or sports coverage, there are clear examples at either end of the spectrum. In between, there is a lot of gray area. We can prescribe clear examples, but in the gray area, judgment must be applied on a case-by-case basis to determine whether GNG is satisfied. Trying to define large swaths of sports coverage as routine and insignificant is a dangerous and ill-advised course. There is no general rule that regular daily coverage of entertainment, business, local government, or other spheres of human activty do not constitute significant coverage. Nor should there be such a rule for sports coverage. Again, we can prescribe clear cases, but GNG requires reasonable minds to weigh and balance the coverage in the vast gray area. There is nothing wrong with that, and indeed that process works well. Cbl62 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Then it should be clarified by footnote or otherwise that the examples represent clear failures to demonstrate significant coverage, and they should not be treated as threshold examples which when minimally exceeded constitute "significant coverage"; if we are unable to clarify this point, I must oppose the inclusion of these examples. I have witnessed how these examples of trivial coverage are often misused in real-life AfDs for college sports-related subjects, and I am adamantly opposed to extending that potential misuse to every other sports topic, and generally throughout all notability discussions that reference WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. I hope you understand this point and can accept it. We should not be watering down existing standards by accident. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and end this discussion per Andrew Davison, all the other editors who have criticised this and the arguments that I have made above. At the end of the day, it is clear that the exclusion of 'routine coverage' from GNG (outside cases provided for by SNG) has no prospect of achieving consensus. [I'm not sure if Andrew's example of the Boat Race is right but I can think of a better one. I assume that the FA cup final is not an "ordinary" game for the purpose of the example (though mega-deletionists might try to argue that it is at AfD because its not international) but ... what about the semi-finals? And what about the quarter-finals? And what about the earlier rounds? It is all very vague.] James500 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I chose an Oxbridge boat race as an example because it's an event that I often watch myself but it wasn't long ago that we didn't have a page for each annual race - there was just a single page for the overall history. I was thinking of starting a page about a recent race but didn't get around to it. Since then, TRM has started cranking out such pages and has made a good job of it, getting them up the FA level. For another example, I was looking at the sports pages of the evening paper on the way home. There was some continuing coverage of the Fury vs Klitschko fight - a recent event that I hadn't noticed before. A bit of hunting soon turns up a stub about the event – Wladimir Klitschko vs. Tyson Fury. Is this routine or not? One could argue it either way and I don't think there's any clear policy statement that we can or should make about this, especially in the middle of a different guideline. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Andrew, in all honesty I don't have a clue. about the fight. I haven't followed boxing in years, and I don't think I've scratched a single boxing article in 7 years on wiki. That said, I would suggest that the notability of the fight in question will probably turn on (1) WP:EVENT, (2) WP:GNG, (3) WP:NOTNEWS, (4) WP:ROUTINE, and (5) WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I do note the existence of a lot of individual fights listed on the Template:Muhammad Ali and Template:Mike Tyson navboxes. Are all of those individual fights notable? I don't know, but I bet most, if not all of the heavyweight championship fights are.
• As for the Boat Race, James, the series has been covered in so many feature article retrospectives in The Times and other major British newspapers that all of the modern editions are almost certainly notable. Andrew would have a better sense of the nature of the coverage of the old-timey races than I do, but I'm under the impression the anual races got a fair amount of coverage back in the day, too, given the Oxford-vs.-Cambridge rivalry angle. Again, I'm not an expert. That said, the World Series and the Super Bowl are not "international," but they are undoubtedly notable. I've never seen this "international coverage" criteria you mention, although I would personally give a good deal more benefit of the doubt to an Australian subject who received coverage in the States, or an American subject who received coverage down under. I think that intangible is inherent in the concept of notability: to borrow Andrew's language above, the more widely "noticed" a subject is, the more likely it is to be notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I really think that we need to consider the option of creating a separate guideline on understanding what is and isn't routine, knowing there is no bright line to distinguish this, where we can populate examples either side, and making sure it is clear that this only is about the determination of notability and that routine reporting is not disqualified as being used for reliable sourcing otherwise. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are very wise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please ping me if you come up with a proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose For avoidance of doubt, I oppose example 3(3) in its entirety. ROUTINE is a different concept from NOTABILITY and so belongs on a different page, as Masem says. Examples such as The Boat Race 1993 indicate that we do host such content and so there is no clear, simple guideline which we can state for this. The Notability guideline has existed for quite some time without the proposed para and the concept is fairly clear. Per WP:TOOMUCH, WP:TLDR and WP:CREEP, we should not make such additions. Andrew D. (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me clear that my intent on a separate page is to explain how routine sourcing impacts the accessment of notability for a topic, but leaving what the definition of "routine" as fuzzy and broad since it is impossible to be concise in a workable definition. Instead, the page would feature a list of examples what is clearly accepts as routine, and what is clearly accepted as non-routine, as it pertains to understanding notability. Assuming consensus for that page, that would subsequently be linked off this guideline. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. WP:ROUTINE is a deletionist essay, not mainstream policy, and it should not be made into policy. We need more articles, not fewer, and "routine" coverage is perfectly valid, if significant. There's no rule saying that topics have to be "unique" or "unusual"...if there was, almost everything I've done here would be gone. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually WP:IINFO is policy that says we should avoid indiscriminate information. Full-fledged coverage of topics that are not "unique" or "unusual" verves into indiscriminate coverage. Mind you, I agree that there is a huge grey area of what is the difference between routine and what is not, but it is important to recognize this is coming from policy. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  "Indiscriminate" does not have an accepted definition other than the four cases listed at IINFO (in-universe fiction, lyrics, statistics without context and too detailed software logs); more often than not IINFO is used at deletion discussions as synonymous with "I don't like it". There certainly isn't consensus that being "unique or unusual" is a requirement for a topic to be accepted (we have articles about water and sky and people, which are fairly usual topics).

  IINFO was born to fight random collections of miscellany such as "in popular culture" and "characters in Y" and "list of X" (where X is not well defined). Structured collections with items of the same kind do not fall under the spirit of what we all agree is indiscriminate. Diego (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  Those examples are not what I would consider "usual", because they describe very unique things - unusual is not equal to rarity/scarcity here. Its definitely true that IINFO is not a bright line test, but keep in mind examples at WP:NOT are not the only cases, those are just the only well-defined cases. Same thing would be true of what I propose for a separate ROUTINE page - we can only define this by what is known to be acceptable and not acceptable, leaving grey areas to be discussed when they come up (and hopefully added to be an ongoing "casebook" to help future discussion). --MASEM (t) 16:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support in principle - As an experienced AfD participant, I strongly support the concept of including additional guidance on the meaning of "routine" (as outlined in the WP:ROUTINE guideline) in the form of examples of coverage that are clearly "significant" per GNG, and examples of coverage that are clearly "routine" and therefore not significant per GNG. This is exactly the sort of common sense guidance that our editors, article creators and AfD participants desperately need. WP:ROUTINE is not new and it should not be perceived as something threatening to entire classes of established articles. Having given this some thought overnight, I think the best way to proceed is to expand upon Masem's suggestion above: we should include five or six examples of routine coverage that are clearly not significant, and each example should be shown in the context of an actual linked newspaper article (via a current online newsite, Newspapers.com, or Wayback Machine). Conversely, we should also provide five or six examples of significant coverage that is clearly not routine; again, the examples should be shown in the context of actual linked newspaper articles. The examples should not be limited to, nor dominated by sports topics, and should include several topic areas where WP:ROUTINE commonly comes into play. As for the suggestion that WP:ROUTINE is a "deletionist essay," made above, I urge everyone to review the Wikipedia definitions of "policy," "guideline" and "essay," and absorb the relative authority and precedence of each form of guidance, per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Factually, WP:ROUTINE is already a part of our notability guidelines and it's not going away. What we are trying to do here is provide better guidance as its intended meaning and interpretations, and how it should be applied. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
  • The more I think about it, the more I think this separate page idea will be useful in a lot of areas. A common issue, for example, at NORG is restaurant reviews. A local paper is going to routinely go around and review a local business once a week or more which generally is not considered towards significance of the local restaurant (but would still be useful to source if the restaurant is notable by other means). On the other hand, things like Michelin stars, while "routine", are considered appropriate sources for significance towards notability. Don't ask me to define what the line is, but I can stake those two points on either side of the line and say those are representative of what we'd take as a routine source and a non-routine source in judging notability. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• FWIW I started User:Masem/Routine for this separate page on routine coverage idea. Please feel free to add examples on either side of this "routine" fence, as a brainstorming phase, and don't worry about conflicting ideas yet. We can prune down later. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Masem, I think you're blurring the line in the examples of your draft essay: it's not that the events are "routine" or routinely scheduled, it's that the events received routine coverage per WP:ROUTINE. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Indiscriminate exclusion of topics

There is a passage at the beginning of this guideline that says that notability serves "to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics". I think we should change the word "inclusion" to "inclusion or exclusion". I don't think this would change the meaning of the guideline as one literally cannot have indiscriminate inclusion without also having indiscriminate exclusion at the same time. What it would do is more explicitly acknowledge that notability already serves to avoid indiscriminate deletion by creating a presumption against deletion. It would be less easy to twist the new wording into a claim that notability is a deletionists' charter, which it is not and should not be. James500 (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you give an example of your hypothetical twisting ever actually happening? And whence your idea there's a "presumption against deletion"? EEng (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Exclusion" in the context of notability is not a valid approach. Notability is only a test for a stand-alone article, not exclusion of topics which might be better covered in broader articles. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And BTW, notability is only part of the test for a standalone article, as I'm having great trouble getting people to understand right now. EEng (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I sure I can recall many instances of editors indiscriminately waving around "indiscriminate inclusion" as if it was a license to delete any topic they do not like, or to put it another way, any topic against which they are prejudiced. It might take a considerable amount of searching to produce links, as I would have to search several years of editing. If editors were to go around excluding topics or articles because they simply don't like them, that would be indiscriminate exclusion in the sense that it would create indiscriminate gaps or holes in our content (I am tempted to make an analogy to a piece of Swiss cheese). They would be indiscriminate at least in the sense that there would be no consistent inclusion/exclusion standards, which would instead appear approximately random. Notability guidelines do create a presumption against deletion (or even merger/redirection) because N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:" it meets GNG or SNG and doesn't fail NOT. That presumption is a positive obstacle that makes it positively harder to exclude such articles (and presumably their topics as well) than it would otherwise be if notability did not exist. It is true that the presumption can sometimes be rebutted by a stronger argument (but not if no such argument can be validly applied to the article in question), but I don't think that matters since the presumption is always an additional hurdle. In any event, in many cases the presumption is practically conclusive. We are never, for example, going to decide to no longer have article on the Crimean War. One of the reasons we are never going to do that is because there is simply too much coverage of that war in too many suitable sources (a phenomenon that we call GNG). My understanding is that before notability existed, editors could and did attempt to argue to delete/exclude articles/topics that they simply did not like (cf. WP:IMPORTANT). The presumption created by notability, and GNG in particular, certainly makes it harder to do that. If, on the other hand, preventing "indiscriminate inclusion" means that we do not have articles on everything (or an excessively large number), then GNG certainly does help to prevent indiscriminate exclusion in the sense of having no articles or content (or an excessively small number), by creating a possibly impenetrable obstacle to that. If as Masem argues, notability is only a test for a stand-alone article, not exclusion of topics which might be better covered in broader articles, then it cannot be a test for inclusion of topics which might be better covered in broader articles either. If he is correct, the passage in the introduction should read "indiscriminate inclusion or exclusion of articles", not topics. That said, his reasoning might not be correct because it assumes that all topics can be merged into an article on broader topic. That might not be true, particularly as pages have an absolute 2Mb size limit. Either way, the presumption created by notability does help to prevent indiscriminate exclusion of something, whether it is articles or topics. James500 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(a) Can you fucking learn to indent your post like everyone else, or at least use {{od}}? You've been asked before. (b) Is the answer to my question in there somewhere? EEng (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Can you fucking learn to indent your post like everyone else"? EEng, did you mean to post that to Wikipedia talk:Civility, where you've also been posting in the past few minutes? You might want to head over to that page, as you have a boatload to learn about that topic. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes for a quasi-explanation -- it's disruption for the sake of taking a principled stand along the lines of the essay which was being discussed there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a principled stand, it is a piece of straightforward copy-editing that you personally strongly disagree with. It has no relation to that essay whatsoever, which has nothing to do with notability or INDISCRIMINATE, except that you have followed me from that venue via another essay. You might like to read AVOIDYOU and HOUND. James500 (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alansohn: He said a bad word, which is not ideal, but it was specifically about a user's actions, not the user himself. Obviously it's supposed to be here, since it was immediately below an unindented comment by someone whose persistently refuses to indent like everyone else (and whose indenting was even mentioned [disclosure: by me] above on this page). The "boatload" comment seems like an unnecessary poke all things considered (but, of course, EEng might consider refactoring to add a minced oath instead, lest people evaluate other arguments by poor word choice) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to explain things to poor Alansohn. I guess he follows me around now like a little puppy. I'm happy with my word-choice -- it's an entirely appropriate response. This guy's like the guy who insisted on omitting spaces after periods and commas. [9] EEng (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I will use a greater level of indentation in future if it will make you happy. James500 (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Use the system at WP:THREAD, as called for at WP:BOTTOMPOST. EEng (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

All you've done is appropriate the word "indiscriminate" in order to eat away at the concept of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This sense of ~"indiscriminate exclusion" is not actually a counterpart of WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- it's just a similar wording for an entirely different concept. You're arguing for changes based on what the purported actions of "deletionist" bogeymen. Finding diffs wouldn't be persuasive as there are people who mischaracterize and misuse Wikipedia policies and guidelines to fit their own point of view all the time. If someone says something is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and you disagree, disagree with them. Same as with anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I could only answer by repeating what I have already said about the meaning of INDISCRIMINATE, and pointing out that copy-editing to improve clarity is a good thing. James500 (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)