Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)/Archive 2

Content to discuss

I removed the additions repeated below in the collapsed box. My reasoning was that I felt the tone was not in keeping with the rest of the proposal, that WP:ONEEVENT was mischaracterised, and that the wording was largely redundant to existing content. I'm happy to see edits, changes and additions made to this proposal, but please take care to build on existing content rather than repeating it, and to discuss potentially controversial interpretations before adding them.

This statement is not correct: "Some events receive coverage only in the day immediately following their occurrence. These events per WP:ONEEVENT guidelines are not notable for standalone articles." WP:ONEEVENT does not say this. It does not say anything about the inclusion of articles about events; it is about "People notable only for one event." WP:ONEEVENT aka WP:BIO1E has been repeatedly misused as being about reasons not to have articles about single events and this must not be propagated by this guideline. Indeed, this sort of misinterpretation is one of the strongest reasons to have this guideline.

The 'Geography' section is redundant to content in 'Breadth and scope' that already addresses the issue of local coverage. 'Length of coverage' is already addressed in 'Persistence'. 'Anticipation' is already addressed in the section on 'Breaking news'.

The concept of 'lasting impact' is a good one, but we need consensus to include it. It is alluded to in comments about setting precedents etc. and also in the idea of historical interest and lasting vs passing events. Fences&Windows 03:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion and exclusion guidelines

The following criteria may be used for inclusion: Geography An event is considered local if it is covered only in the paper(s) of the point where it took place. For example, the September 11 attacks took place in New York City, and the New York Times is one of the papers specializing in covering the exact geographic point of this event. Had this story only been covered in the New York Times and on New York's TV and radio news networks, this event would have remained a local interest. But this event was covered in the news outlets of virtually every other geographic location, thereby making the event go beyond local. While coverage expanding beyond the locality is usually a requirement for inclusion, this does not grant automatic notability to the event. Length of coverage Some events receive coverage only in the day immediately following their occurrence. These events per WP:ONEEVENT guidelines are not notable for standalone articles. They are, however, in some cases, be worthy of inclusion in another article when they have an impact on the status of the subject of that article. Other events may receive continued coverage for a somewhat or substantially extended period of time. While coverage may and often does end, these may be worthy of a standalone article if it can be documented from sources that they have a lasting impact on society. Anticipation Shortcut: WP:ANTICIPATION Anticipation is the belief when an event breaks that it will beyond a reasonable doubt meet inclusion guidelines for news events, thereby resulting in the creation of an article on the event. Wikipedia has seen a lot of articles on events created in anticipation of their notability. For example, an article on the 2009 Washington Metro train collision was created just 60 minutes after the actual crash occurred. At this time, a rescue operation was still in place, an investigation was yet to have begun, and the final death toll was yet to be known. While many such articles on breaking news may go unchallenged, in reality, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When creating such articles, it is wise to evaluate the circumstances and consider starting work on the event by adding information about it to the article on the most closely related subject, and when this outgrows the capacity for that article, to split it into a separate page. Wording of ONEEVENT for reference When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.

I think it is better, since this is only a proposal and not a guideline that can be used in AfDs yet, to leave this content in the proposal, and remove it only if there is a consensus to do so. Sebwite (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A general note about tone - the last proposal, WP:News articles, didn't gain approval. I think this was in part due to attempts by editors to use it to delete articles at AfD before it had got near gaining consensus, and partly because it was too specific and prescriptive in its approach. We need to avoid sounding too negative about articles on events and the editors who create them.

The expansion of Geographical scope mainly repeats in different words what is said in the previous two paragraphs. I will see if I can work the different wording together.

Using September 11 attacks as an example for local vs national/international events isn't ideal as the event is so obviously notable that no editor should have nominated an article about it for deletion even if it had been created minutes after the event (it was actually created in December 2001). Any deletion debate of a similar event on such a scale would and should be a SNOW keep. The need for guidance is in the grey areas.

The Routine long-term coverage section is too vague to be useful. The wording isn't specific enough to be able to generalise from your homicide example to other events that may have long-term coverage yet are routine. If an event has persistent indepth national coverage in multiple reliable sources, how do we objectively determine that the long-term coverage is routine? Using a homicide as an example is problematic as we already have a specific guideline for criminal acts.

I don't get the section heading Cause and effect. The alternative of "Impact" may not be ideal, but 'cause and effect' isn't very intuitive. Can we think of a better title?

Please explain this sentence: "Though many of the above examples will involve multiple articles, even if all the information written on the event involves just a single article, it may still be notable if it meets all these criteria." I don't see what's being driven at.

Anticipation is going to need discussion. I agree with reminding editors about WP:CRYSTAL, but we also have to recognise that some events are going to be widely seen by editors as notable very soon after the event. Large-scale, unexpected, unprecedented events are bound to have a lasting effect and to generate acres of news coverage. We are going to look foolish if we write a guideline that would have deleted September 11 attacks if the article had been created the same day, or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (created 10 hours after it happened), or the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto (created on the day of the attack). Editors will always rapidly create articles about such an event, and to try to stop them would be like Canute trying to stop the waves. I don't think we should encourage Wikilawyers or NOTNEWS zealots to argue for deletion. Fences&Windows 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think we should discuss "Non-routine coverage may include important developments regarding politics, economics, crime, war, and disasters, as well as certain aspects of law, business, science, and technology." This seems too bland and general to be useful in offering guidance. Fences&Windows 01:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the "Long-term routine coverage" section, as it needs better explanation to be included, and I don't know how to work that idea in. I've merged the "Anticipation" section into the rest of the "Breaking news" section, but I've not deleted any of the central ideas. "Cause and effect" is now "Lasting effects". I've simplified the "Geographical scope" section, strengthening the wording. I've removed the sentence about "non-routine coverage" as it was too vague to be useful. Fences&Windows 19:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

This suggestion / question is prompted by my discussion with one user who went so far as to post on the Talk:Main page when he wanted to create an article on the "Tupac is alive" conspiracy theory. Since conspiracy theories are often related to news events (in this case the death of Tupac) shall we include a section on when if a conspiracy theory (or a hoax) has become notable? In other words, define what level of news coverage or acceptance or congressional investigations need to take place to qualify as notable. Or just rely on WP:GNG?  7  07:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stumbled upon this - maybe it is the more appropriate solution.  7  08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:FRINGE is the best guideline for conspiracy theories. A hoax event - such as Colorado balloon incident might turn out to be - would be covered by this proposal though. Fences&Windows 16:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Junk at end of routine coverage?

What value does the table or the last external link in the routine coverage section add? I am far from sure because I don't understand them. The source strikes me as highly academic textual deconstruction, which is not a language that I speak (or read). More to the point I fear that 80% or more of WP editors won't understand them either and that therefore they will contribute more to confusion than to enlightenment. I am not saying that guidelines should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, but material that confuses more editors than it informs may not be helpful. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the table confused more than it clarified, so I have removed it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I think the wording above it gets the point across anyway. I thought the table made it clearer, but then I'm used to this kind of presentation of ideas in academia. Fences&Windows 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about possible problems

This page was only mentioned in the Village Pump within the past day or two. Rather than have a straight yes or no vote, the Village Pump inclusion should be an invitation for other editors to suggests changes.

• Possible note that the policy is to be the primary policy for notability of news events. Otherwise, the same arguments of not news versus many reliable sources will persist.
• There will be the never ending fight about recent events. Rather than wait as the proposed policy states (and lose potentially good edits), there should be much leeway for possible articles to survive at least a week. So the Washington metro crash would be allowed to survive at least 1 week without hardworking editors working to edit while fighting to keep the article alive. Instead, those editors could work hard to improve the article knowing that a good job could help. Only after a week would it be necessary to divide one's attention into a fight. Fighting hurts Wikipedia.
• Persistance of coverage should be a nearly automatic indicator of notability. If an event is covered several times over the years, this should nearly automatically be given weight. A sub-heading should be assigned, such as WP:EVENT/CONTINUEDCOV

Resolved

added this, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE&redirect=no Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Lasting Effects section should be re-visited. Otherwise a lot of the cyclone articles may be subject to a fight and AFD. Some cyclones and hurricanes caused some damage but are insignificant 5 years later.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that notability is not temporary; therefore if a weather event is notable at the time, in all likelihood it'll always be notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But there could be a fight that the weather event was incorrectly deemed notable at first. There are two ways to solve this. Declare all named hurricanes as automatically notable. High school get this treatment. Another is to carefully re-write the proposed policy,. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is possible that some cyclones might not be notable (despite the current de facto policy of Wikiprojects related to them), so it might be worth hashing it out here at the guideline level, rather than let the projects make their own policy on the matter. For example, WikiProject Star Wars can clarify at the project level what WP:FICT means for its articles, to determine how best to apply it, but the project cannot outright overrule the guideline (except in very few cases, and with a good reason. It might be that cyclones are outside the scope of this article, or they might be covered by it. I really don't know yet, and we'll have to get other Wikipedians in here to generate consensus about the scope of the final version. This proposal is the result of a few of us collaborating to write something that reflects our opinion of how notability applies to news events, but it may be that the larger community has a somewhat different take on it. We shall see where this goes. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If specific WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather want to develop specific guidelines to gain consensus for specific topics like extreme weather events then they should. I don't think severe weather events are the most hotly disputed of event articles. If this wording is problematic, then it can be changed or removed: "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable." Fences&Windows 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this affect the murders? Murder of someone by Amanda Knox. Murder of Cannon Christian. Murder of Tim McLean. Fort Hood shootings. Murder of Emily Sander. Or grandfathering of murder articles that passed AFD? It may be good to grandfather things because killing stuff is potentially bad. How would Juliancolton like it if 2 dozen hurricane articles, representing 500 hours of work is thrown in the trash? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's accurate to assume that so many tropical cyclone articles fall under that category. Nonetheless, if they do become disallowed by policy, the most appropriate course of action would be to merge them with the hurricane season articles rather than delete them altogether. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Murders are already covered by their own notability guideline, which is linked to from this page. Also, we would have to determine whether tropical cyclones are considered "news events" or something else. I think they probably would be, but that's just my personal opinion. Under this proposal as it currently stands, many of them would be better off merged into the season articles. I think this is an opinion that a significant portion of the community holds (same with some other "automatically notable" things, such as roads). So, we'll leave it to the community to determine what is and is not a news event. Actually, now that I think of it, this proposal should clarify exactly what a news event is. It lists several types of events, but we need a general definition. That would help us determine what it applies to. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. An event is, according to Wiktionary, "An occurrence of social or personal importance", and according to WordNet it is "something that happens at a given place and time." Events are distinguished from other topics by being about a single occurrence, i.e. something happens and it is limited in its place and duration. "News event" and "event" are really the same except that a news event obviously needs to have been picked up by the news media; I'd support just calling the guideline "Notability (events)". Fences&Windows 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional possible problems:

• The guideline might be killing reasonable articles. It is now written like this:

Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the persistence of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. For example, 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred. The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown.

That seems to suggest that the article should not have been written, at least, until later. If so, there would be a AFD fight and a lot of wasted energy. Maybe the solution is:

Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the persistence of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. For example, 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred. The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown. However, if there is a reasonable chance that it is more than a minor passing news event, unnecessary drama should be avoided by not nominating the article for AFD for at least 7 days.
Or maybe a new tag needs to be created,
"This article is about a current event. Details may rapidly change and may not be reflected in the article. The article may be subject to deletion if notability is not rapidly established."

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That wording about "anticipation" is descriptive rather than prescriptive; it doesn't necessarily say that writing the article early is wrong, but it advises that it might not be ideal. It was added by someone more skeptical than I am about articles on events, but it's a point I think is fair to make. It is balanced by the later text, "However, articles about widely reported major unexpected or unprecedented events ... will almost certainly gain consensus to be kept even when created on the same day as the event occurred." Fences&Windows 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change 1.1.0 (version two would be 1.2.0 or minor change is 1.1.1, another entirely different proposed change would be 2.1.0)

Add paragraph 3 to lead. Changes in bold. My additions are poorly written and need work. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia should have articles detailing particular news events or incidents is a perennial and contentious question. Generally, a topic is presumed to be notable and thus worthy of inclusion within Wikipedia if it has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. This is the general notability guideline.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Editors wishing to document a current news event can write for Wikinews. Not every incident that gains news coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. Reporting should be in sources that have a national or global scope, and a rule of thumb on whether an article should be written is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, bearing in mind the question of recentism.

This policy (or guideline) is applicable only to news events. It may serve as a guideline but is not policy for articles that are also about something else, such as storms, fiction, etc.

This page is intended to be a guideline, not a policy. Other notability guidelines, such as WP:FICT and WP:WEB do not have similar disclaimers, so I believe that this one should not have one either. A guideline is something that should be followed in nearly all cases, except when there is a reason why ignoring it is necessary to better the encyclopedia. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of this, I'm going to change the tag. The original tag says it is a proposed policy or guideline. The corrected tag should say it is a proposed guideline. I might not be able to fix the wording but I will try. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The template as it stands is fine. I have reverted your change, because the template is the one that is supposed to be used for a proposed policy and a proposed guideline. The RFC states that it is to become a guideline, and it will be in the family of WP:N,which is also a guideline, so firther clarification is unnecessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See how confusing WP is? It's a proposed guideline but the tag didn't make it clear. So Wordsmith was correct (mentioned in the RFC) but I was also correct (tag wasn't completely accurate). This type of thing happens often in WP and we are on the same side, working together. Imagine when people are opposed to each other such as screaming "not news" and "but it is covered by all these reliable sources". So even though there is widespread agreement on this proposed guideline, let's go over it with a fine tooth comb to make it is exactly the way we intend it to be. I suspect it could use some improvement. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So where do people think we stand?

I made a small addition to the routine news coverage subsection, but overall I think that this proposed guideline is in pretty good shape (thanks to a lot of work by a few editors, especially Worsmith and Fences). Does anyone still see significant problems? Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at my user talk page about how this would affect a few articles that a user randomly picked out. We need to figure out if this guideline would solve the perpetual debate at AFD (not news vs. many sources), and determine if the wording here accurately reflects community consensus and common practice. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a few other structural modifications to clarify exactly what the inclusion criteria are, so that we can be absolutely sure how it would affect articles or potential articles. Pieces of that section that are more like advice than actual inclusion criteria have been moved outside that section. Hopefully this helps. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On Wordsmith talk page, there was a discussion about the subway crash.

Airline crashes, when they involve passenger jets, seem to be automatically accepted as articles. Yet after the crash investigation is over, there is usually no further coverage. When a bus falls off a cliff, it is usually considered only news. Some users may consider the Washington Metro incident to be worthy of an article since it is a big entity (a subway of a major city) and a rarity (subways usually don't crash) and quite a few people died (not just a minor subway inconvenience but a major incident among subways). This is not the AFD but a discussion on how to word things.

Some people may accept a long list, such as "WP articles are allowed for airplane crashes, when they involve airlines and fatalities, for major subway accidents with fatalities, bus accidents only when more than 100 people are killed, only the top 5 political speeches of a politician unless there is an overwhelming reason to have 6, crimes or incidents involving police if there is continued coverage 365 days later, etc." I am not saying these should be the rules but it gives us an idea whether we want such specific lists.

Maybe we should have Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and customs? By customs, we could use the above paragraph. Using the bus and plane example, an airplane crash is a WP article if 15 people die. A bus crash probably isn't. The bus people may scream discrimination. How could we justify it? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merpati_Nusantara_Airlines_Flight_9760 (I don't disagree with having this article where 16 passengers died). Yet, no article on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8071654.stm , a bus crash in Bulgaria that killed 16, which I am skeptical needs a WP article.

If you agree with me that the airline crash merits an article, but not the bus crash, how do we word the proposed guideline? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I making such prescriptive instructions about when disasters or other events become notable is a bad idea, and exactly how to kill this proposal. The principles in the guideline should apply to all events, but if editors find that following the guideline rigidly gets in the way, we should reword it or they should ignore it. Specific guidelines can be drafted by individual WikiProjects if they feel they are needed, but this general proposal is not the place to do it. Btw, I doubt Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 9760 meets the expected standards of notability, either by convention or by this guideline - Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability - nor the Bulgarian bus crash, though there might be other pages in which they can be written about. Fences&Windows 01:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is if we have a simply written policy, it is probably good enough for reasonable people. But there will always be inconsistencies and contradictions. The only possible way to overcome this is a long, detailed guideline, which most people probably don't want. So I think the not news vs. many sources will not be easily resolved. It may be reduced, however. I'm still not sure how this guideline could reduce AFD's for sensational, recent news items, like Balloon boy and Richmond, California gang rape. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It advises against quickly writing such articles, and it advises against taking them rapidly to AfD if they are created. If editors follow this advice, fewer heated debates while the facts are unclear will ensue. The guideline also makes clear that articles on events are allowed, which many editors citing WP:NOTNEWS seem to be unaware of; some editors would delete all articles about events until a year after the event, but they're in a minority. The guideline notes that some classes of major breaking news events will inevitably be considered notable, so editors might avoid nominations when there isn't a chance of deletion despite their own dislike of the subject matter, such as Death of Michael Jackson. We're not going to resolve all disputes using this guideline and nor should we expect to; community opinion is genuinely divided over sensational news events and we can't legislate to the community - attempts to do this will result in swift rejection of this guideline. Note that BLP concerns were a major consideration in the gang rape AfD, so it was not only notability that was being debated. Fences&Windows 00:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

objections

In general, I consider this an example of use of ambiguous phrases and weasel words to evade (or possibly bias) the issues, complicated by a poor choice of selective examples of sourcing. I'm not going to go sentence by sentence, but some things I know will cause problems down the line are:

1. " Time, Newsweek, " as examples of good secondary sources. I consider them glorified tabloids, and examples of not very reliable sources.

   This is something that must be brought up at WT:RS. Sebwite (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Your view of these sources is probably not the consensus view, but we can change that wording especially as it gives a US bias. Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   The article is on the right track here. If an event is mentioned in Time or Newsweek, it is likely notable. It is a good idea to add a similar non-US example. Location (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   The Economist is already mentioned, that's UK based. Fences&Windows 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2. "many daily newspapers" as examples of poor sources--it depends on the newspaper; some are reliable for covering matters of permanent interest.

   Once again, this is something that must be brought up at WT:RS Sebwite (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

it has ben, many times, and always resulted in what I said: we consider coverage in the NYT makes for notability, at least for events outside NYC. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Suggested wording change? Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   I suggest trimming the wording of that sentence significantly: "In depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, and The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 minutes or CNN Presents)." Location (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Sure, the extra wording was an attempt to use some of the material I found on what 'routine coverage' means, but it may not add anything. Fences&Windows 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I made the change. Location (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2. "A lasting effect may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs." may be,, but not always. Sometimes it's perfectly obvious--like an airline crash. The actual locus of many recent debates is exactly this point: which ones different people consider to be perfectly obvious.

   This is a useful guideline in determining notability of events that happened years ago. Wikipedia is not finished, and there are plenty of events from years ago that presently do not have articles, but could, if only sources could be located. Also, this is only one of the possible inclusion criteria, not the only one. Sebwite (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   The section on Breaking news addresses this. How would you suggest the guideline could be improved to clarify this area? Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   I feel there should be a sub-heading (perhaps level 3 marked by ===) for "anticipation." It is a subidea of the breaking news, so it should be included in this section as such. Sebwite (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   I think we should be trying very hard at this point to keep the article/guideline as simple and as concise as possible. The more we have, the more chance there is for disagreement. Therefore, I am not in favor of a sub-heading. As I see it, the "Lasting effects" section is applicable to creating an article about an event that happened awhile ago. Which brings up the point, perhaps this guideline should be named Wikipedia:Notability (events)? Location (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed on the rename. News event = event for our purposes. Fences&Windows 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I don't want to make this move without a few more editors commenting. Perhaps a new discussion section should be opened to highlight this proposal. Location (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

3. "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors" And sometimes, early coverage is clear enough. This is a wiki, and errors can be corrected. We don;t have to wait until everything is known for sure--and, in fact, for most historic events, that will never take place. I see arguments like this as reasons for never writing articles on anything.

   I do agree that info can be corrected. If something actually gets reported as such, but then changed by the media, it can be changed. Other existing guidelines require ALL info to be sourced, so inaccurate info is there in violation (a separate matter), and it is up to whoever is editing it to fix that. Sebwite (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   The wording does not prohibit writing about breaking news, and that's not the intent. It warns of the potential problems of doing it. We can adjust the wording. Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

4. "in anticipation" Sometimes we are right in an early decision to have an article, as in the example ."2009 Washington Metro train collision ". When we are not right, we have the other advantage of a wiki--if it turns out not to be notable, we can delete the article later. We're NOT PRINT--not just in not having limited space, but in not being fixed. For many things this is a problem--for news events, it can be an advantage. And though "the death toll was not even known"--but it was known that there were enough to make a fatal mass transit accident notable.

   I'm also not entirely comfortable with the anticipation example, but left it in to allow debate on it. I think the editor who added it wanted to prohibit 'anticipation of notability', but the current wording doesn't do that. We can clarify better in this section that articles on breaking news events can be perfectly acceptable. Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   This is just as example. I see no particular reason why one example is better than another, as long as it is a good one to get the point across. I do agree that event with multiple casualties has a higher likeliood of being notable. Sebwite (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   We just need to avoid the (mis)interpretation of the guideline as being seen to rule out such articles. Fences&Windows 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

5. "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target " I see this the other way--if we did not have needless deletion debates on things that seem reasonably sure to be notable, we wouldn't have to worry about them either. There's no deadline for removing an article either. There's even an advantage in having one from early on, yo which people can add, rather than having multiple tries at it.

   The idea that a deletion debate might even be avoided was kind of implicit in that wording, but I see it doesn't come across. We can explicitly mention that. Delaying the deletion nomination of the Balloon boy hoax by a week would have helped no end and it could have even been avoided. Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   I do agree with delaying deletion nominations. There are some editors who just love to delete. They seem to have a sense of joy when they propose something for deletion and it then gets deleted. Such action surely does not help Wikipedia's cause. So I would recommend putting into this guideline a suggestion that deletion proposals of events in which notability was uncertain at the time of the article's creation be delayed. Sebwite (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

6. 'Biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event" I don't see why. Negative unsourced biographic rumors about the participants are what should not be included. encyclopedia articles should have background.

   This wording was from WP:Notability (criminal acts), an accepted guideline. The purpose is to avoid unnecessary details, but WP:UNDUE may already cover that. Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   I think it may be wise to postpone inserting content guidelines until we can achieve a consensus on notability guidelines, so I would strike that sentence for right now. Location (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed, I'd not realised it might be problematic when I borrowed it from the other guideline. Fences&Windows 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   I made the change. Location (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

7. ...(As I said, I could continue, phrase by phrase). But maybe it will not be necessary:

What I would instead suggest is removing the guideline NOT NEWS as unworkable, but keeping NOT TABLOID (=NOT SCANDAL) and NOT INDISCRIMINATE--along with the essential part of WP:BLP: do no harm. I was skeptical about that at first, because of possible overuse, but it does seem to be a good basis for ethical writing. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I'm disappointed to see that you're assuming bad faith. The guideline is not intended to evade any issues or bias discussion. It almost certainly doesn't reflect your particular brand of inclusionism, but the aim is to reflect the general views of the community. Of course revisions and tightening up of wording and examples may be needed; this was clearly stated in the RfC and doesn't seem to be a good reason to reject the whole guideline. You can try to persuade editors to remove WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't think you stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Is your position that we should have no guideline on how to handle articles about events? Fences&Windows 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG has a point. The proposed guideline read well when you are sitting on a sofa, enjoying your own work. Yet if you seriously think if it will end the not news versus many sources, it really doesn't. We are also giving much weight to Time and Newsweek, yet people protest when someone says that the obscure article doesn't appear in other encyclopedias (we seem to want tabloid but then don't want it). Another alternative is to list topics that are acceptable and some that are not, maybe based on AFDs, but that proposal doesn't seem to be very popular. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. I am assuming good faith in that you are trying to write a usable guideline. I however, think you have made many errors in it. How is that assuming bad faith? DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I took exception to this phrase: "I consider this an example of use of ambiguous phrases and weasel words to evade (or possibly bias) the issues." Fences&Windows 15:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I suggest renaming from Notability (news events) to Notability (events). These are mostly synonymous, but not all notable events will necessarily receive news media coverage; older and ancient events may not be reported in news media available to us, but may be recorded in books, scholarly articles etc. Fences&Windows 19:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, kinda already happened. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. For the record, I'm OK with the change. Location (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Doh. Well, I approve! There was me thinking attention to detail was my strong point. Fences&Windows 20:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Wikipedia:Notability (events) is a proposed guideline intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past events, as well as breaking news.

Modifying what appears as the beginning of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), I've added the preceding sentence to the introduction in an attempt to highlight what we are trying to achieve here. Location (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

In order to emphasize what makes an event notable (as opposed to emphasizing what is not notable), I added a highlighted and italicized sentenced under the subsections within the "Inclusion criteria": [1]. My goal was to make it easier to pick-out the relevant, or at least most important, guidelines. If this is allowed to stay, the wording within each subjection might need to be trimmed. Location (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea was that articles had to have depth AND persistence AND scope to be considered notable, as opposed to OR. The change heavily implies OR, which would essentially make the guideline even MORe inclusive than the GNG. I don't think that's what we want to do here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. We could reword to something like: "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." I won't take it personally if you decide to revert. Location (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted some of that edit, as well as changed the wording in the section lede and structure of the criteria section, to further clarify that articles need depth AND persistence AND scope. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Simplified statement of notability

Would it not be simpler to say:

"Notable events are events that pass the notabiilty guidelines at WP:N, which also have significant and lasting consequences which are themselves notable."

That is, the event must pass WP:N and it must have consequences that extend beyond the event and pass WP:N. Can anyone think of an event that would be ruled wrongly by that guideline? - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Future events for one. They can't have consequences if they haven't happened yet. Also, kidnappings that don't result in new laws or similar; the significance of a single death (or long-term absence) of an otherwise non-notable person is debateable. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm keen not to sidetrack this proposal or tread over already debated ground, but (a) a future event can have consequences - Y2K and Olympic Games required preparation in advance. If a future event doesn't have currently verifiable and notable consequences why are we bothering to wikify it? And (b) well, we wouldn't ordinarily have an article for a kidnapping or murder of a non-notable person unless it sparked legislative consequences or somesuch, would we? We may be on different tracks - can you provide me a specific example of an event that would be wrongly excluded or included by the test above? - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Balloon boy hoax? Location (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The "internet and media attention" section demonstrates notable lasting consequences through its impact on pop culture and through the critical debate about the media vetting process. Without that section, yes, it should have been deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like any event, the "media attention" that the Balloon Boy hoax received fulfills the "significant coverage" section of WP:N... which makes the "significant and lasting consequences" phrase redundant. Location (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "media attention" is just the name of the section in that article. I'm not suggesting it's the media attention that satisfies the test, I'm suggesting it's the ongoing debate about media vetting and the pop culture saturation that elevate it above the level of (for example) a run-of-the-mill well-reported crime. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Colorado Balloon incident demonstrates depth, persistence, and scope of coverage. It would qualify as acceptable under the proposal. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How is that different that was is already noted at WP:N? The emphasis on persistence and scope? Location (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It establishes the additional criteria of depth and persistence. In essence, this guideline raises the bar for events, so that we don't have millions of articles on trivial news stories that get covered. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems to me that we want a marginally higher standard here than WP:N, because WP:NOTNEWS rules out some events that would meet WP:N without providing a clear test for separating notable events from [[WP:MILL|run-of-the-mill] news. Reading over the proposed guideline, and recent AfDs, it seemed to me that the key factors you're looking at are whether the event has had an impact, with that impact being assessed by scope (length of time) and notability (significant coverage). Hence the two part test above - a notable event with notable consequences. It's the most elegant way I can think of making a clear test that separates out (well-reported) one-off crimes from genuinely notable events. It doesn't create any new tests - it draws on the existing, well understood one at WP:N and in effect just uses it twice. As with any Wikipedia policy there's room to argue about what does and does not satisfy it with room for special case exceptions, but it's understandable and there's no obvious circumstances in which it would unambiguously produce the wrong result. (And you can quote the entire policy in two lines, which is always great.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

this needs to have "obviously expected notable consequences" or we would be ruling out such things as major disasters until possibly weeks or months afterwards. We also need to be able to deal with such things as hurricanes that did not touch land. I also point out that it has been held so far that the specialized N guidelines are an alternative to WP:N GNG, and this would be making a specific exception to that. That's a very general issue for the community about which there has previously been no consensus. However, I will say I think that this might be clearer than NOT NEWS. (I gather that it is part of the proposal to strike out that section of NOT entirely). What we might now need to do is to find some examples and see how they fit. How would the rule fit, for example, to the last National Republican Convention, at the time or later? DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear what will happen to WP:NOT#NEWS after this. As far as I'm concerned, WP:NOT#NEWS should remain but refer only to routine news coverage since there is no consensus that other types of reports are not encyclopedic. Location (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If we think that limitation should remain--and I certainly agree that Wikipedia ought not cover "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" -- it could easily be incorporated here. Actually, I see one of the key merits of this proposal as a first step towards trying to reword some or all of the content-related parts of NOT in a positive manner. I think it would be more productive to try to get the proposal here to essentially give a similar result to the present, not broaden or loosen it. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that DGG's amendment makes sense. "Reasonably expected to have notable consequences" might be a better phrasing. I personally don't see the problem in not having articles about hurricanes that don't touch land if those hurricanes don't have notable consequences but I may be overlooking something there. I also, philosophically speaking, would think that it isn't too problematic to not have articles about major disasters until their lasting consequences are demonstrable, although practically speaking allowing the article to get started as events develop would aid information gathering and sidestep a bunch of redundant AfDs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Geographical scope

Most of the opposes thus far are opposed to the Geographical Scope section as it was written. I have softened the wording of that section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(events)&diff=326592609&oldid=326503005 here. Please reexamine and see if you are willing to support it with the modification I made. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good change, and I slightly softened the language further, I think in keeping with the spirit of your change but applying it to the second sentence. I think the "events that have a demonstrable impact on the region, such as city-wide elections, are presumed to be notable enough for an article" addition is particularly good and necessary, though I'm wondering if there are not perhaps other obvious examples beyond elections which we should mention, and/or if we need say something slightly more expansive there. Any thoughts on that? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This change is an example of where the proposed guideline looks very nice when reading it but that either solves very little or has an unintended effect. We have proposed an exception for elections but there could be other local signficant events, such as a terrible storm that greatly affected a city or a murder spree that shocked the city where it is mentioned in the newspapers years or decades later or some other event.

Because of this discussion, I am leaning much less to support but still support a discussion to how to resolve the "not news" versus "many sources" debate.

Maybe we should just admit it in the policy that some events will clearly be notable because of (give reasons) but that discussion is permissible for borderline cases and that a lack of consensus will be default to keep. We could also add that clearly non-notable items have the following characteristics (many of them mentioned in this proposal). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of consensus already always defaults to keep, & I think there is firm consensus on that. Even proposals to have it default otherwise for just BLPs have been rejected repeatedly--as I think they indeed ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To Suomi Finland, can you propose something specific in terms of the changes you are suggesting? I agree there could be (indeed are) other significant local events beyond elections which might only receive local coverage but still warrant an article. Perhaps we can list a couple of additional examples and, more importantly, come up with a general phrasing that allows for some flexibility here, while not, for example, opening the door for an article on every 4th of July parade in 2009 in every town in America (hopefully we can all agree that that's not really desirable). Also as DGG says there is no need to specify that lack of consensus defaults to keep as that is the current practice and isn't changing anytime soon. Even if there was ever consensus to change that for BLPs (which there is not now, and that is the only category of articles for which the "default to keep" practice has been questioned), that would not affect AfDs about current events. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There already is an exception for local events that have an impact on the region. If you read the latest version of the proposal, there is a sentence stating "However, events that have a demonstrable impact on the region, such as city-wide elections, are presumed to be notable enough for an article." This means that events that have an effect on a local area can be notable. City-wide elections are just one example of that, and there are many others. Listing every single exception would be completely unnecessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this change from "However, events that have a demonstrable impact on the region, such as city-wide elections, are presumed to be notable enough for an article." to "However, events that have a long lasting or signficant impact on the region, such as city-wide elections or event repeatedly reported long afterwards, are presumed to be notable enough for an article." The minor change eliminates the hard to define "demonstrable" and calls into question whether one election actually changes the city much in the long run. An election probably does significant impact over the medium run so it qualifies under "significant". The parade example, which I assume we don't want, can't use the above wording as an excuse.

Progress is being made! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this edit, because the idea that events that have a lasting impact is already expressed in its own section. Having redundant content would not be a good idea for this section. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my concern has already been addressed by the ContinuedCoverage and Persistence section. My bad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo someone else's previous comment and ask what the attempt at geographical limitation really buys us. I understand the intent and need to screen out trivial events, but can anyone give an example of an event we want to screen out that the geographical scope section (as presently written) would rule out which wouldn't already be ruled out by the "no routine events" rule? Perhaps I'm being unimaginative. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this section is to rule out articles on things like local parades, which may receive coverage in one or more local newspapers that would otherwise be of sufficient depth and persistence to warrant an article. Such articles really have no place on Wikipedia, and the seciton is designed to reflect common practice in that area. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A local political scandal, the closure of a local amenity, or a local festival all could have lots of local coverage over time, but if the event never made it into coverage beyond the immediate location why should it be included in an encyclopedia? Local media also have very little discrimination in what they cover, which is another reason that their coverage is not a good indicator of notability. Fences&Windows 16:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Hi all, I've opened a Request for Comments on adopting this page as an official Notability guideline. This page was revived and rewritten as a response to the constant confusion at AFD and the endless attempts to cobble together a rationale from various assorted policies, guidelines and essays that are only tangentially related. This is an attempt to set some clear criteria for an area that has always been vague and fuzzy. Please give feedback below and, if you oppose adopting it as-is, suggestions on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support (predictably, as I helped write it). The aim is to give guidance on how to handle articles about events based on existing policies, guidelines and common outcomes of deletion debates without being overly prescriptive, and I hope this proposal meets that aim. If parts of it are unclear or controversial or it is missing something important, please say! Fences&Windows 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• In general I support this. It seems accurate for the most part and indeed very reasonable, even if it means losing a bit of high-quality article work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a policy, support as a guideline Moral support, needs some serious consideration and maybe minor (but important) re-write but on the right track!. I support this in general. However, if called a policy, it could have unintended effects and should have more discussion. Guidelines are like defining pornography; I know it when I see it. Unless policy is carefully thought out, it could kill articles (or create arguments) that are not intended. One American kid was expelled because he brought a boy scout eating instrument to school and it was called a knife. That was bad policy. If it were a guideline it might have prevented his expulsion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is intended to be a part of the Notability guideline, not a policy. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support The spirit is in the right place and it follows from common practice at AfD and our policies. One thing I'd like to see is more of an emphasis on historical notability over recentism. There are also some wording issues. The lede can be tightened up and the sentence "Editors wishing to document a current news event can write for Wikinews" sounds pretty BITEy. The nutshell should be reworded or explained. For example, how is "persistent coverage" defined? Overall, the guideline is a pretty good start and the wording would be clarified over time as the guidelines are implemented at AfD, so I'm not opposed to it. ThemFromSpace 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I fixed that Wikinews sentence and made an attempt to clarify the nutshell. Is that better? The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a Notability subguideline. Of course, once it becomes that, what it says then is never final. We can continue to discuss and make changes as need be. (In my opinion, we should be sure that few if any existing articles suddenly become deletable as a result). Sebwite (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a guideline. Something like this has been needed for ages; the most heated AfD debates are always this sort of thing, and vague, generalised statements like WP:NOTNEWS, which were fine when the community consisted of five men and a dog, are no longer enough. The less vague the guideline, the more helpful, and this is very specific in some areas. My heartfelt thanks to the people who helped draft it. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per national and global scope part. Remove that, and I'd be behind it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And really, the whole thing doesn't work. What about state ballot initiatives. They all get coverage, so I guess that's routing, and it's not national. However, there's a consensus that those articles should be retained, so this guideline is way out of step in almost all ways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. That section of the article currently focuses on what is not notable (i.e. "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region is generally not notable as it is only of local interest."). Perhaps rewording it differently to focus on what is notable might work better (e.g. "An event reported nationally or globally is likely to be notable."). Location (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to point at WP:NOTPAPER and say as long as the event isn't routine/run-of-the-mill and satisfies the GNG and WP:V even only via local reliable sources, why not include it? Certainly provincial or national events are more notable, but that doesn't mean we have to draw an arbitrary line at how wide a geographical area must be involved. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

For topics of only local interest as reflected in the coverage in reliable sources, the standard outcome is deletion. The guideline can certainly include more positive examples about what is notable. As for state ballot initiatives, those aren't events, they're legislative proposals, so they are not covered by this proposal. Fences&Windows 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support in general, with the understanding that portions will be revisited. We badly need a single set of community norms to determine which events deserve articles, and this is a good start.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, also in general and very much in spirit, understanding of course that we can and will tweak and revise, but I have no major problems with the proposed guideline as it exists now. As others have said this is desperately needed. I think the WP:BREAKING section is particularly important and goes to the heart of some of the problems surrounding breaking news events. That section makes the key points that "it is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event" yet also best practice "to delay [an AfD] nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge." Simply codifying these ideas will solve a lot of our problems in this area, and putting in some guideline language along these lines (don't start the article right away, but once it's up don't run right over to AfD either) was something I specifically had in mind when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident (an excellent, mess-of-an-AfD-example of why an events notability guideline is needed). Overall I think this is a very good effort and hope it gains acceptance, even if we need to make adjustments along the way. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support as the guideline seems to provide a uselful expansion of WP:NTEMP. My understanding of events is that unless they are the subject of significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis, then they won't be notable. The guideline goes a long way to define what is significant. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think it addresses the issues we have about recentism, but also offers plenty of instruction as to what allows articles to meet the threshold. People will still argue, but this is much clearer than WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so that's good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. NOTNEWS (along with its related guidelines) has to be the most widely ignored policy on Wikipedia, and having policies that are widely ignored is not a good idea. This will help. Deor (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When something is ignored, that's an indicator that it doesn't actually have consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's ignored pretty often, but it's also one of the most cited policies in AfD and related discussions. If you are suggesting there is not consensus for the idea, central to WP:NOTNEWS, that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article," then I think you are kidding yourself. I don't run across many Wikipedians who seriously argue that we should have an article on every flash-in-the-pan story that garners attention for a day or two (does this and the hundreds of articles like it mean we create Bill Belichick goes for it on fourth down against Indianapolis in November of 2009?—I don't think so). Getting rid of WP:NOTNEWS (and if you think it doesn't have consensus I assume you are in favor of that) would allow en.wikipedia to function basically as Wikinews does, and I think it's pretty obvious why we don't want that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I follow the news related AfDs a bit, and there is a consensus about what to keep and what to get rif of. This proposal doesn't reflect that consensus, but that's actually OK. Policy and guideline pages suffer from self selection bias (towards exclusion), but that's OK because we can and do ignore the wrong ones out in the general pedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
        • ...there is a consensus about what to keep and what to get ri[d] of. Obviously you follow a different set of news related AfDs than I do! I think you're in the minority in thinking that consensus on those AfDs is easily discerned, since that is almost certainly not the experience of most editors who have participated in newsy AfDs. And that's terrific that you have so much confidence in "we" (whoever that is—presumably not anyone who likes this proposal) having the ability to ignore the policies and guidelines that are "wrong" (presumably you have an authoritative list of those), but for the rest of us who are less confident in our ability to always make the right IAR judgment (and less confident in the efficacy of writing the encyclopedia that way) I guess things are a bit more complicated, and sometimes it's helpful to write guidelines that are descriptive of certain practices to which editors can refer when there is a debate. Sorry if that interferes with this vaguely-defined-yet-apparently-ironclad "consensus" of which you speak, but on the other hand apparently you don't much care. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry to have angered you, if I have, but mostly that's correct. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Not angry, no, but definitely a bit astounded that one could take that approach to editing when it comes to AfDs or really anything else. But of course if you're comfortable with it there's not much else for me to say here. Thanks at least for replying and being up front about your views. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether or not WP:NOT#NEWS is "widely ignored" is POV depending upon whether or not you think an event is receiving significant coverage or will have lasting notability. There is probably a consensus that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"; however, I'm not sure there is any consensus on how to address events such as Murder of Annie Le, Balloon boy hoax, etc. Perhaps this guideline may help. Location (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually think most of the proposal is excellent, but the "Geographical scope" section is problematic: "Such coverage does not justify a separate article regardless of the number of reliable sources that can be provided." --Cybercobra (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Changed to Support, see subsequent comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose; this seems to me more restrictive than current practice or WP:NOTNEWS - it will catch up a lot of significant local events for which we should have articles. e.g. it seems obvious to me that Pittsburgh mayoral election, 2009 demonstrates notability but it would appear to fail this guideline (coverage is purely regional). As well, any guideline referring to "national" scope seems to be openly encouraging systemic bias in favor of smaller nations. It also seems obvious to me that this proposal will make Wikipedia worse for our readers - in talking to others, Wikipedia's strong coverage of current events has always been portrayed to me as something readers consider a major asset. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to resolve the objections to "Geographic scope". If it stays, it does seem as though there would be no place for Pittsburgh mayoral election, 2009. On the other hand it would open the door for East BF mayoral election 2010 if it goes. Suggestions? Location (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The obvious suggestion would be to make this a requirement about the existence of reliable sources, in keeping with the general notability criterion. I don't think we require further limitations in this area beyond "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The only risk in including reliably sourced, neutral articles is that our readers will find us too useful of a resource. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • For a more addressable suggestion, I would suggest limiting the scope of the guideline. Attempting to cover everything from battles to terror attacks to elections to murders to balloon hoaxes with the same advice is not a useful exercise. I think a better definition of the subject class would be a good place to start; at the moment there is no attempt to define what is covered by this guideline - is SN_185 an "event"? The appropriate subject of a guideline like this would seem to be the murders and balloon hoaxes side of things, and I think trying to reduce the scope to just those is the best way to amend the proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sure we could tweak the geographic scope section a bit, and I would not think that only having problems with that bit should be sufficient to oppose outright, better perhaps to propose changes (admittedly Christopher Parham seems to have other objections). And some might be surprised how often notable local events are covered in media outlets beyond the immediate region. I was aware of the Pittsburgh mayoral election and results, not because I'm a die-hard Steeler fan in Point Breeze watching local TV news, but because I read the New York Times ([2] [3]). Bear in mind that coverage by AP, Reuters, or other wire services would constitute coverage beyond the immediate region. For elections of any significance (big city mayor definitely qualifies), and for many other "local" events, there is often more coverage than one might think. Still, I'm not at all opposed to revising (even dramatically) the geographic section to make it more possible to include events of note at the regional level, Perhaps a new section should be started at the bottom of the page to discuss this, as there are probably a number of ways we could write the policy such that it's obvious that mayoral elections and a host of similar events are Wiki worthy while a church bake sale that was written about in two local papers probably is not (no offense to churches or bake sales). Finally I would also like to note that the phrase "murders and balloon hoaxes side of things" does not currently appear on the internet. Shocking!  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I think I can go for this, although it is a little on the permissive side. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• support - I have held this view for a long time although others seem to disagree. good luck. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Skomorokh makes good points, and we do get enough articles about "events", it's likely best that we have it laid out. Could probably use a few restriction tweaks - but it's a good start. — Ched :  ?  06:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - it may need minor tinkering, but I prefer "bright line" rules. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I am not convinced that this guideline will immediately eliminate the lengthy Afds we have seen with breaking news topics, however, it should serve as a good foundation for consensus on those types of articles. Location (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - this material should be judged byWP:GNG, not its own notability guideline.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Depth of coverage

This sub-section does not currently have an abbreviation. It is not required but may be nice if often cited.

It leans heavily into print and TV but doesn't address the internet.

What if an event was covered by CNN (USA), BBC (UK), and Sydney Morning Herald (Australia). Isn't this sufficient? Or how about L'Express (France) and Honolulu Advertiser (USA)? If it is covered in 2 continents, isn't it enough? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I think a shortcut link to the subsection at some point would be a good idea. 2) I'm not sure of any internet-specific examples. Many of the print and television outlets often put their material online. 3) An event that receives in-depth coverage by CNN (USA), BBC (UK), and Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) is likely to have widespread geographical coverage. 4) I don't believe the number of continents matters if the number and depth of coverage are not significant. I think "depth of coverage" refers to the detail of coverage as per WP:GNG. Location (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

C: To highlight the major point of the subsection consistent with some of the other subsections, I've added the following to "Depth of coverage": An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Location (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Q: The opening sentence of this subsection states: "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing." WP:GNG does not specifically refer to "not in passing", so I'm hoping we can clarify what that means. Does that refer to the duration of coverage or the lasting notability of the topic? Location (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and 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.

— WP:GNG; bolding is mine

--Cybercobra (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The question I had was about the phrase "not in passing" that we have included here. Location (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My impression was the level of detail of the coverage was intended, but we really should avoid "innovating" in our paraphrase of the GNG. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news section

It is written "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors."

This is advise on behaviour. Is this what we want? Many people would disagree. Since there is probable disagreement, there should be discussion.

Should we delete all breaking news and then say "come back later and re-write if it is notable". If so, lots of work could be lost and references gathered lost. Also, it may be easier to get references when the event is fresh rather than look later.

Should we keep this?

Should we modify this to read "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors but if the event has a likely chance of notability being clear later, let it go and don't AFD the article."

I have no opinion at this point because I need to think about it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The section basically says this already. It says that you should probably delay writing it immediately, but that if it is written, you should also try not to AFD it immediately. Its just in the next sentence. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to embargo news coverage on a heavily edited wiki is futile, and wouldn't be a good idea even if you could. There's just won't be the same motivation to start working on an article a week after the event happens. 140.247.241.138 (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wordsmith is probably referring to this..." it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge " So would this mean that AFD's on news events which are borderline (not clearly deletable, such as local parades) should be closed as "keep, guideline says to allow time for clearer picture".

If so, I don't think some users agree with this.

1. Should there be an automatic immunity to AFD (except in clearly non-notable news cases) for ___ (several) days?

2. Allow violations of these new guidelines and let the AFD to go on?

Since we know about the potential problem and expected conflict, we should not allow known violations to happen (situation 2) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines offer advice and suggest best practice. I would hope that editors could restrain themselves from immediate deletion nominations, but if they cannot then speedy keep would not be appropriate and there is nothing in this proposal to support such an admin action. Nobody has to adhere to every letter of every guideline, but if people followed the advice it would reduce the hue and cry surrounding articles about events. Fences&Windows 15:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall effect of this proposal?

What is the overall effect of this proposal in terms of the impact on the body of policies and guidelines? Is this what we want?

In my mind, it has these effects:

1. It will have it harder for certain reliable, verified information to make it into Wikipedia
2. It will worsen Systemic bias because non-western events are less likely to make the criteria than western events. This is made worse because the examples in this guideline are nearly all US and are all western.
3. If will embed a kind of anti-localism in Wikipedia and limit Wikipedia's growth: we can have an article about some obscure computer game, but not a "local" event. Local newspapers become some kind of "second rate" reliable source.
4. It will discourage one of our main positives at the moment - up to the minute accuracy for events like the recent Iranian elections.

Some people seem to have an anti-news agenda and think all this stuff should be shifted off to Wikinews. However, there are lots of reasons why news on Wikipedia is different from news on Wikinews. You can't create an article on Wikinews about an event that happened a month ago; articles there are "published", but on Wikipedia they are constantly open to improvement. Wikinews covers instantaneous events, whereas Wikipedia can give all the background information, put events into context and discuss trends.

I'm not seeing any particular positives about this proposal. Clearly restricting Wikipedia to verified events is positive because it improves the integrity of the encyclopedia overall. Restricting Wikipedia to notable subjects is positive because it improves the noise-sound ratio. Raising the bar for notability does what exactly? AndrewRT(Talk) 10:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is good as a "best practices" document, but I agree regarding some of your concerns. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is not "anti-news". The purpose of writing the proposal was to record how it is that editors tend to view articles on events, i.e. what are the principles that are already used to judge whether an event is sufficiently notable. This would mean that these principles are available in black and white and can be applied more consistently across articles. If there are aspects on which there is no consensus then the guideline can offer advice and discuss the issue rather than taking a fixed position.

The position that local coverage offers less notability than national or global coverage exists already in deletion debates, it certainly wasn't invented by this proposal. Local newspapers are usually second rate - they fill their pages with fluff.

How and why will this proposal make systemic bias worse? Don't just assert this - please demonstrate it and propose how to fix it. And the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are not Western, so your claim that all the examples are Western is not true. Fences&Windows 15:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the issue with local newspapers is that they carry fluff or that they are not reliable sources, but rather that events that receive only local coverage don't have the widespread notability required for an encyclopedia. I am also not clear on how this would worsen systemic bias. WP:V is not optional. Location (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would counterargue that we include aspects of specialized encyclopedias, one type of specialized encyclopedia being those focusing on a region or local area. Your mention of WP:V seems a non-sequitur; local stuff is verifiable in local sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement that "local stuff is verifiable in local sources". The issue of WP:V was meant to address the initial comment regarding systemic bias (point #2), not local newspapers (point #3). It was asserted that "non-western events are less likely to make the criteria than western events". It stands to reason that western events are more easily verifiable in the English Wikipedia, however, we cannot ignore WP:V for non-western events. If a non-western event meets verifiability and notability policies/guidelines, then it can be included. Location (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I agree the non-Western point is flawed like you say. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The requirement at Wikipedia is "notability" not "widespread notability" . The extent over which an event need be notable is arguable, and there is not general accepted rule for wither events or anything else. there is no accepted guideline for this: the nearest to one is the essay Wikipedia:Places of local interest--much of it is actually accepted, but it is not a formal guideline. Normally it is accepted for most sorts of articles that importance on the basis of a US State or equivalent area is sufficient--that national notability is not needed. But sometime much smaller areas are accepted, and sometime national is needed--as for athletic competitions. Attempts to settle this here are very unlikely to attain widespread consensus. I'm not sure that I have a firm consensus within my own mind even, let alone together with other editors here. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, some examples of our best content is unquestionably only of local interest. I agree with DGG, I don't have a consistent opinion on localism either, merely that the more borderline a subject's notability is, the more effort it will probably need to make to save itself at AfD. With events, the bar is rightly set higher. Even quite a major story in the Watford Observer or Hemel Hempstead Gazette will not normally warrant a wikipedia article unless the wider world takes notice. WFCforLife (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistence of coverage

Are there any objections to retitling "Persistence of coverage" to "Duration of coverage"? I initially borrowed "persistent" from the reference to "persistent coverage" in WP:PERP; however, I think "duration" might be just a little bit clearer. Location (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Duration is less jargony. Fences&Windows 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Location (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Geographical coverage - still a stumbling block?

The idea that local coverage offers little or no notability on its own is a rule of thumb used in a lot of AfD debates, but this proposal's initial warning probably overemphasised this point and misjudged consensus. Now that the wording is the softer "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable", is this still a problem for its adoption? Fences&Windows 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to Support now that it's been dialed back. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has featured a number of contentious debates about events, particularly breaking news events, that have received intense media coverage. Several policies and guidelines within Wikipedia stand out as being frequently cited in these debates. Recommendations for "keep" often cite the breadth of coverage as satisfying the general notability guideline which states that "a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Recommendations for "delete" often cite WP:NOT#NEWS, a sub-section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that refers to new reports, as well as WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E which refer to the notability of people known for their role in a single event. Other guidelines often cited in Afd debates include WP:NTEMP and WP:N/CA. By attempting to clarify the application of these rules to articles about events, this guideline is proposed as an attempt to develop a community consensus on how future similarly situated articles should be handled.

I hope this isn't too bold. Borrowing substantially from Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), I've added the above. I've tried to integrate what we already had written into a section that hopefully clarifies what we are attempting to accomplish and the reasons for it. There are some major changes in the wording, however, I don't believe I've added any new ideas not revealed by the current consensus. Location (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How does proposed guideline change this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_White_House_gatecrash_incident

I haven't voted for or against. This is the current breaking trivial news. Keep or delete? How does the proposed guideline treat this one?

The reason for asking if to see if this proposed guideline helps resolve the question by using real life examples. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good question, and a perfect case study. Although I think meaningful interpretation is difficult while the AfD is still open. And as far as possible, we shouldn't be changing anything, we should merely be saving time by clarifying the things you should demonstrate as part of a keep/delete argument. WFCforLife (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, you should have given a clearer reason for deletion in the nomination - and you generally shouldn't nominate articles unless you think there is a good reason for deletion. This guideline recommends looking at alternatives to deletion, so it would have been better to think of merge targets, and delaying the nomination is also recommended and would have been better in this case. For depth of coverage, the news coverage has gone beyond merely reporting the facts of the event, we're seeing analysis of their motives,[4] suggestions that they may face criminal charges[5]. For duration of coverage, it's held up 5 days after the event! It's likely to hold up better than the 'Barack Obama fly swatting incident', as it was an event with more real world consequences. Geographical scope: global coverage. Diversity of sources: tons, very diverse. Lasting effects: hard to say, but probably nil. Hard to see any changes to protocols or laws on the basis of this event. Routine coverage: not really the case, it is a bit 'and finally', but the coverage goes well beyond that. I'd say this event is highly unlikely to have historical notability, and that the duration and lasting effect will probably be minimal, but we'd have been better able to judge this in a week or two. I'd suggest trimming all the pointless biographical material and merging to White House intruders. Fences&Windows 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very similar article at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert K. Preston. Location (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to close?

This RFC has run for nearly 3 weeks, and (by my count) has 17 supports and 2 opposes, which roughly equates to 89.5% support. Is this enough to close the RFC as successful and promote? The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You can add me to the tally under "support". I am not sure what protocol dictates, but this should probably be closed by an admin not involved. Do we need to make this known to a wider audience first? Location (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I advertised this at the Village Pump, which is why this came to the attention of so many people, especially in the beginning. I think consensus is pretty clear (currently ~86% support), so i'll try to flag down a passing admin to make it official. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Add me to the supporters, too, even if I missed it the first time around. It's not often I support subguidelines to notability, but I think this is one area where one is warranted, and will serve to tighten requirements rather than mislead people into thinking they're looser. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

CAUTION: This section is about consenesus to close the RFC. Be very careful because a consensus to close may achieve very little. The prose of the proposed guideline is very nice in theory, but will it work in practice? The way to find out is to test a few recent examples and see how it holds up.

One recent event is Mr. and Mrs. Salahi's uninvited attendance at a reception prior to a state dinner. News? Tabloid news? Encyclopedic? All 3 articles have been subject to an AFD (Mr. Salahi, Mrs. Salahi, and a Wikipedia self titled event "2009 White House gatecrashing incident"). How does the proposed guidelines handle this? Wikipedia has a "other crap exists" but having a practical list of what is and is not notable for comparison (and incorportated into the guideline may help). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has already been closed. This is now an official notability guideline. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Promotion to Guideline

After spending a significant amount of time looking at everything, I want to announce that I've promoted Notability (events) to Guideline status. The consensus was beyond a doubt in favor of promotion. I think the exposure for the RfC was sufficient, having been listed in Centralized Discussion for almost three full weeks. I also think this guideline is viable and will not be in conflict with existing guidelines. It covers a lot more ground than the top level notability guidelines as seen at WP:GNG. This guideline will help prune some of the contention that is involved in a number of AfDs. Utilizing all of this I have determined that promotion to Guideline is indeed warranted at this time. Congratulations. Valley2city^‽ 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great, particularly as I was just coming over here to see if anyone had evaluated the RfC yet. I agree that this guideline should help out considerably at certain types of AfDs, and hopefully we can spam the link to this thing around various applicable discussions for awhile so that folks know it has become a guideline. Props to the editors who did most of the legwork on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Diversity of sources section misrepresents WP:N

The Diversity of sources section says "Per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, multiple sources are required..." This is incorrect. WP:GNG says "Multiple sources are generally preferred." (And the footnote merely explains the reason for the preference, it does not raise it to a requirement.) The language here might have been appropriate to the original purpose--to deal with an excessive number of articles about recent events in the news of little impact--but it is not a reasonable policy statement for historic events. I have happened across 100-year-old stories in the New York Times that I have not been able to trace to other secondary sources on the web, but which I believe would provide enclycopedic content for the project. Once it's up, others might be able to find things behind subscription barriers or in paper libraries that I can't access. Exactly the same would be true for innumerable possible articles based on old print sources or on regional publications in other parts of the world. I believe that the above sentence from this guideline should be replaced with the GNG language, or it should be expanded to explain that the stiffer requirement is for current news items only. I'd do it myself if this was still in draft. With a brand new official guideline status, it seems better to ask for input first.--Hjal (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording here could certainly be clarified, but I think the contradiction that needs to be addressed first is the one within WP:N. WP:N and WP:GNG both refer to "reliable sources" (i.e. the plural of "reliable source") suggesting that multiple sources are required for an article. Extrapolating from the third footnote in WP:GNG, an event that only has one source suggests that that "topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." In other words, you probably shouldn't start an article about an event that only has one 100 year-old source. Location (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence in WP:EFFECT

This sentence has perplexed me: "Recent events for which a lasting effect is probable yet unproven are not necessarily non-notable." I wanted to delete it, since it seems to fall back onto itself and mean nothing, but the previous sentence seems to lead into it. Can someone who knows the intention of that line please tweak it, or delete that last two sentences altogether? Angryapathy (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose to it was to avoid people citing WP:EFFECT as a justification for deleting all recent events unconditionally. As a rule of thumb, an article shouldn't be created on a breaking event. But if it is created, there will most likely be an AfD. The sentence is intended to stop delete voters quoting EFFECT as a reason to unconditionally delete *EDIT* a clearly notable but breaking event, such as 9/11 *end of EDIT*. At the same time, the onus remains on those who would like to keep the article to explain why the event in question will "probably" have a long-term effect. WFCforLife (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) EDITED WFCforLife (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to re-word for clarity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a change is desirable, but I disagree with that particular edit. If the previous version possibly undermined the previous two paragraphs, this version certainly does. WFCforLife (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My intent was only to make the sentences more clear. Any change in meaning was entirely accidental. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Silly question since I can't think of an example off the top of my head: Is there an example of a notable event which had no lasting effect? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

An event could have no demonstrable lasting effect on anything, but still be talked about years later in several sources. Wouldn't such an event be notable? Fences&Windows 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would think the event had a lasting effect upon the (sub)culture if it was worth commenting on so much. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Being remembered and having a material impact are not the same. Fences&Windows 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Concrete example? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Shoe-banging incident? It was symbolic, but it had no real lasting effect. Fences&Windows 03:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that works for me. Was just trying to see if the clause was unnecessary and the policy thus simplified. Guess not. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

'recommended' vs 'should'

The word "recommended" appears twice in the guideline, both times in the WP:Notability_(events)#Breaking_news section. The word "should" appears multiple times (but not in Breaking News). I believe in both cases of "recommended", the terminology should (lol) be "should", in part for consistency, and in part because as a guideline, it should specify what the consensus believes should happen. --Jaymax (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Case testing the guideline

Suomi Finland 2009 refers in a section above to the AfD's for the biographical pages for the participants in the White House party crash (eg: Michaele Salahi Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michaele_Salahi) and the event page itself.

it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target - is clearly relevant here - but is weak. Perhaps this is overly semantic, but per my comments above re "should", if it said editors 'should' delay the nomination for a few days that would be more useful to those involved in any AfD debate. (The AfD apparently started immediately).

merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, such as rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event is also relevant - and perhaps should be restated nearer the top of the sub-section in the context of article creation, suggesting new Breaking News Event articles should be about events, not people.

related: my next 'thing' is to think about AfD and what the available closures are. I may well be wrong, but I understand them to be keep, delete and no consensus - I wonder about having a couple of other options: merge with x (or maybe keep until merged) and speedy no consensus, refile in n days --Jaymax (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the nightclub fire AfD has me pondering an alternate to any merge option - delayed delete which would lock the article, add a banner stating any proposed destination(s) for usable article content, and trigger a delete in say one week. This would drive the retention of useful facts and references while people are still able to stumble across, easily access, or watch the talk page for the article. --Jaymax (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's approximately the same as Userfication or movement to the Incubator. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree - and copying the text to a new incubator article could be one outcome under such a AfD closure decision - I'm thinking about making it easy for the closing admin to take a closing action that is sufficiently flexible and promotes the re-use of article content where appropriate, but allowing a time window and template box to allow the process to occur. For example, after an AfD, it doesn't help if twenty editor all individually userfy the article, and the closing admin shouldn't have to deal with (say) moving the artcle to the incubator undere a new name - especially if it then gets abandoned - an editor who starts the incubator article has some responsibility to help incubate it. So I see this as a mechanism to promote those strategies, rather than being equivalent to them.--Jaymax (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuwang Club fire as a test case. The Wordsmith^Communicate 08:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed that somewhere(?) will look at it now. I misinterpreted you. There's a (subtle) distinction between a 'live' test case, and a very recent but 'retrospective' case - I suggest we continue with both. --Jaymax (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Need for examples

In some countries including the USA, there are annointed version of law books. The law is in the text and there are footnotes at the bottom of the page. Perhaps we should have this and come to a consensus to what recent AFD are borderline keep and borderline delete and incorporate this into a guideline. That would be real progress, more so than passing this guideline as a RFC. So we could say that the Salahi gatecrashing article is notable and well as the Wuuwuu fire. We can use other examples if these 2 articles do not have consensus for inclusion into the guideline footnote. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I nominated that nightclub fire article so we can see how AFD regulars interpret the guideline, and help it to better reflect common practice. Once this one closes, i'll try nominating one or two more. It'll be slow, but as this guideline gets more exposure we can better judge how it is used in practice. Including pre-promotion AFDs would be difficult, since we don't know how it would have impacted the discussion. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One alternative to having examples (or another way to address the issue) is as follows:

Current wording says (under breaking news): Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. For example, June 22, 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred. The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown.

The guideline doesn't say if this is permitted or forbidden. In practice, out of 6 billion people, one person is going to start an article on breaking news.

Maybe we should add:

1. If there is a reasonable chance of notability for breaking news, the article must not be speedily deleted.

That is an issue for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, not here - I would accept that there might be scope for a nuanced version, but 'clearly routine' stuff should still get speedy deleted. --Jaymax (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably better than:

2. Breaking news is forbidden and will result in indefinite blocking of the starting editor.

or

3. Breaking news is permitted if the news is big news of the day.

The reason I'm bringing these things up is that I would like a guideline that actually solves problems. The current guideline helps but doesn't help enough to decide breaking news with many sources versus Wikipedia is not news. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's two (?!?!) too soon to say that yet - but this testing process will highlight what needs tweaking after a few cases (and also inform any changes required to AfD). --Jaymax (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The best way to see how it works in practice is to find AFDs where it applies and use it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news: To split or not to split

Earlier today, I had added in a level 3 heading in the breaking news section between the second and third paragraphs that read "Anticipation," and moved the respective shortcut there. I thought it looked more presentable like this, and displayed the point. Fences and Windows thinks this heading should not be there, and be as it is now.

I do not wish to edit war over something this little.

What are some other opinions? Sebwite (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it how it is. In fact, I would like to see the subsection header for Wikinews removed, too. This section has the potential to be referenced in quite a few Afds, so I would like to see it trimmed where possible. Location (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)