Wikipedia talk:Notability - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before assessing if a subject has enough notability to create an article, check out if they have been assessed at Wikipedia:Source assessment first.

Archives

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

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

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

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

Please give me examples of tertiary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masem gave you an example: sports almanacs. For others, see WP:TERTIARY. Largoplazo (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

given that any source has to meet the other requirements of the GNG section (e.g., reliability, independence, significant coverage) This is the obvious interpretation, and the interpretation the vast majority of editors use, but as you've likely noticed, there is some minority (or maybe one vocal person...) who insists that a given source does not have to meet all of those criteria. There are also a baffling cohort of editors who interpret "significant" as being met by recognition in a prestigious source (regardless of coverage amount or depth) or by the implications of the coverage (e.g. they would consider the sentence "X is an esteemed Y whose importance cannot be overstated" to be SIGCOV). If we made it absolutely indisputably clear that each source needs to meet all criteria then I'd be more comfortable simply stating the PSTS blurb. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

At the risk of sounding overly blunt, all of this seems entirely beside the point. Superficiality would be a reason to exclude a secondary source from counting towards notability, too. (So would being pay-to-include.) In other words, you're comparing a hypothetical bad tertiary source against a hypothetical good secondary source. That's not a reason to dismiss all tertiary sources. If my print copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica that I've had since I was a child has an article about something, then the default expectation should be that Wikipedia has an article about it too. Indeed, I'd consider "Britannica has an article on this" as an all-but knockdown keep argument at AfD. (I say "all-but" because for organizational reasons we might go for a merge instead. Writing is complicated.) Really, this whole debate seems to be a symptom of taking a distinction that we basically made up — or at the very least, one that we use in an idiosyncratic way, while pretending it is much more clear-cut than it really is — and treating it so seriously that we give ourselves a headache. OK, time for me to check out of the bikeshed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No inconsistency. Tertiary sources are a subset of secondary sources, with any differences being within the noise that exists for case by case decisions on any particular source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true. Tertiary sources are built from a mix of primary and secondary sources, and could be entirely based on primary sources, like a dictionary. Masem (t) 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masem is right. It might be better to never mention tertiary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion of just replacing this with the PSTS sentence
Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources., plus a footnote explaining why we should be cautious about tertiary sources, would be reasonable. Or, even better, just state outright that primary sources do not contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#c-FactOrOpinion-20250102151700-GNG_and_secondary_sources 37.111.189.185 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRV states The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest...

Meanwhile, NEXIST says The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources online or offline) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

Does this last sentence mean NEXIST overrides the "verifiable, objective evidence" requirement and instead obligates anyone who wishes to challenge a subject's notability to absolutely prove that it does not have SIGCOV somewhere? Does it mean if inaccessible sources of any quality (e.g. unevaluated Google search hits) are known or assumed by one editor to exist, the subject should not be deleted? Even if:

• We have no idea whether identified or hypothesized sources contain SIGCOV
• Identified sources are in fact extremely unlikely to contain SIGCOV as they are namechecks in table or list-type formats rather than prose
• The subject cannot be presumed to have garnered coverage through their accomplishments/value
• The subject's accomplishments/qualities are explicitly not considered presumptive for SIGCOV
• Other global consensuses have established requirements on the type of coverage the subject must have demonstrably received, and these criteria are objectively not met

JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only effect of NEXIST is to make it clear that the scope of the search for sources against which to evaluate a topic's notability is the world at large, not the References and External Links sections of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of "overriding". These two principles exist in tension with each other:

• Do not assume that if the sources aren't already cited, then none exist and so the article must be deleted. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Check your assumptions of non-existence.
• Do not blindly believe someone who shows up at AFD claiming "of course lots of great sources exist". Accept evidence, not hand-waving. (Though, honestly, JoelleJay, if you told me that lots of great sources exist, I would actually believe you and accept that as an indirect form of evidence. There are maybe a dozen or so editors I would unhesitatingly trust for such a statement.)

If you prefer a blunter way of putting it, NEXIST could be summarized as "AFDers should not be lazy" and NRVE could be summarized as "Closers should not be gullible". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding of it as well, but some editors deploy it for topics where, if there was to be coverage, it would likely be offline, and therefore the fact that we can't access those sources to disprove notability means we should assume SIGCOV exists, regardless of any other considerations about the topic's notability (such as it not meeting any criteria that presume coverage exists). JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of possibility in the last sentence is a bit confusing, it's a very vague wording. What exactly is meant by possibility, should editors ponder on the notion of what hyperthetical authors may have rwritten about the subject? I think I understand what is trying to be said, but it's not very well worded. That it's not only the sources in the article that need to be taken into account when judging notability, but "possibility or existence" is an odd way to put it. It could almost be taken to mean that is someone can think of a sources that could hyperthetically exist, then that source would count towards notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like many of these titbits it could probably been written more clearly using half the words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. And that would make it seem like it's calling from something more complicated than it actually is. Largoplazo (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More fully, "should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article". Which I think seems pretty unambiguously means, as I said earlier, "Don't assume that the sources you see in the article are the be-all and end-all of sources available for the subject, consider the possibility that sources supporting a finding of notability exist outside of the ones cited in the article." Which then places the obligation on the reviewer to look.

Like, 50 years ago, "When evaluating whether life on Earth is unique, consider not only the planets we know about [which, at the time, were the ones in our Solar System] but also the possibility or existence of life-bearing planets not part of the Solar System." I could be missing something, but I think you're making it out to be more complicated than it is. Largoplazo (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or trying to solve a problem that exists between keyboard and chair instead of a problem that exists in the guideline. If one or the other resonates with you more, then you might find it very frustrating to interact with people who hold the opposite view. Even if you have an undisputed set of facts (e.g., JoelleJay and I have opposite views on an Olympic athlete from a developing country where English isn't widely spoken, at a point in time when the internet was basically unavailable to the general public), it is time-consuming to negotiate with other editors over whether it's best to do "your" way (whichever way that is) in the particular instance. It would be ever so much quicker if the rules simply said that if editors reasonably expect sources to exist, but they can't prove it (e.g., because the reasonably expected sources are expected to be offline), then the ____ side automatically wins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing "...consider the possibility that sources supporting a finding of notability exist outside of the ones cited in the article" has generally been taken to mean sourced identified on the talk page or in a AFD or similar discussion that is clearly linked via the talk page, but not yet incorporated in the article. Those sources are evidence beyond what is included in the article, and while we want editors to include them, there's no deadline as long as they are there. Masem (t) 02:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not what we meant when we wrote it (e.g., this addition in 2009, which I believe was the first time this concept entered the guideline). We meant something a lot closer to "if you're going to nominate an article or vote for its deletion, then use your favorite web search engine first, because frankly we're tired of lazy noms asking us to google everything for you". Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation started a few days later.

I don't even think that a claim that it's just about what's posted on wiki makes sense as a plain reading of the sentence. It's a long sentence:

"Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."

So this is addressed to AFD folks, not to article creators; it points directly to AFD's WP:BEFORE, and it says you should "attempt to find sources", which is something we normally do off wiki. This is telling people that they're screwing up if a little Let me Google that for you response proves the nomination and deletion votes to be based on sloppy work or lazy comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, based on things like the changes of NSPORT, we've moved away from the "probability of sources existing", unless that has been established through an SNG criteria ("if topic meets this, there is a good chance for sources to exist."); for topics outside the areas an SNG covers, we expect clear evidence of sources.

The GNG wording does establish that if you have some demonstrated secondary sources with significant coverage, that you can presume notability and that other sources may exist. That's still a presumption that can be challenged, and that facet would not be accepted an AFD where a reasonable BEFORE has been done and no one arguing to !keep has brough forward sources. Masem (t) 04:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many attitudes and beliefs in the community have changed since 2009. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD you need to show evidence that sources exists. If this is currently meant to stop editors making poor or bad faith nominations that should be dealt with by guidance on editors behaviour, as it's disruptive editing, rather than here. What should be here is that articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion solely based on the sources currently in the article, and that at AfD articles shouldn't be judged solely by the sources in the article. That could be said a lot more simply and a lot more clearly than the current wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see you re-write it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will sometimes be guesswork. I understand a lot of people want these guidelines to be bright-line objective tests with no dispute. The only way to guarantee an article is to pass all our policy requirements (WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT...) with flying colors.

For everything else, it might still pass if editors convince each other that any issues can be fixed. This is the point of WP:NEXIST. For example, if someone finds significant coverage in a non-English language source, then there's a decent probability that more good sources might exist. As with any speculation, the probability goes down the longer that you wait without any success. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of many types of articles where it makes sense to weigh the possibility of 'hypothetically existing' sources at AfD, i.e. ones that cannot be specifically named right now but could be in future:

1. Articles on topics very likely to have been covered in offline sources that nobody in the AfD can reasonable check right now, e.g. a settlement which likely has newspapers and local history sources about it in the local library, but nobody lives close enough to check

2. Articles where a source search turns up titles or abstracts in the catalogue of an offline collection (library, archive, etc.) that sound like they contain significant coverage of the topic, but we can't be sure without physically checking them

3. Articles on topics where the majority of sources can be expected to not be in English or another language not widely accessible to AfD regulars (though automated translation is making this less and less common)

4. Articles where searches turn up such a vast number of potential sources that we can't realistically search through them for significant coverage, but the shear volume implies that it is likely to be there, e.g. academics whose work has been cited thousands or tens of thousands of times

5. Articles on some future event that has not been written much about yet but almost certainly will be, e.g. the Olympics in 12 years' time

I have seen all of these types of AfDs many times, and that's what I interpret the last sentence of WP:NEXIST as referring to. It's not a question of abandoning the requirement "verifiable, objective evidence" but being pragmatic and assessing the likelihood that a handful of English-speaking volunteer Wikipedians are able to properly evaluate that requirement within a week. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This answer is helpful enough to be the basis for an essay, if not part of the guideline itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Points one through four are issues that should be resolved by a proper BEFORE step, that is, the onus on the one seeking deletion to make sure they have not overlooked possible sources that may be offline, etc, or to sift through a large number of search results to find the specific topic. If anything, that makes me think that BEFORE is how you best demonstrate that you have tried to consider what other sources may exist and failed to find anything. — Masem (t) 15:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's not clear to some AFD noms is that "a proper BEFORE step" includes using their judgment.

I saw a nom recently (i.e., I saw it this calendar year) who got some pushback on the decision to take an article to AFD. It's the kind of subject for which you should assume that sources probably exist. His reply was that he'd clicked all the buttons in {{find sources}} and didn't see anything that looked like SIGCOV, so that was "a proper BEFORE step". He never thought that "a proper BEFORE step" might involve adjusting your search process to the subject matter (e.g., turning off Google preferences for English-only results if the subject isn't from an English-speaking country, checking medical literature if it's a medical subject, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's impractical to ask an editor to visit a library every time an article is in dispute. There has to be some reasonable room for inference. An important factor is whether the article has been tagged for sources for an extended period of time (months, if not years). It also helps if it wasn't tagged by the nominator, which indicates that more than one editor believes that the article is faulty. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think some editors dislike allowing "reasonable room for inference". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, many of those are reasonable situations, though as Masem said these should be resolved through BEFORE. But what about topics that do not meet or partially meet an SNG (your first example would be covered by NGEO) and do not have any evidence of coverage that could plausibly be significant? NEXIST doesn't distinguish between SNG-meeting/highly-presumptive topics and those with no real claim to notability, so if it does exempt topics from showing verifiable evidence of coverage even when challenged at AfD, then how can anyone rebut an NEXIST assertion? And what about situations where a substantial number of inaccessible-to-most sources (e.g. niche institutional access, non-Latin alphabet) have been evaluated without turning up SIGCOV, but not every possible source has been looked at? This has been happening at dozens of AfDs and dePRODs recently. JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language is clear: notability is separate from the citations currently in the article. In practice, it also means those claiming sources exist must demonstrate where they are likely to be found if they are not currently present in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the complexity of wp:notability being a fig fuzzy ecosystem, there is the complexity of writing guidelines that try to deal with the whole spectrum of AFD'ers. From the most extreme deletionists through active NPP'ers where a handful of reviewers needs to handle 95% of the reviewing of firehose of new articles / current 14,000 article backlog in their available wiki minutes. IMO, for GNG-dependent articles, the standard should be a good faith few-minute web search. After that it should be dependent on those advocating "keep" to find and include GNG sources for the customary degree of GNG compliance. Note that for highly enclyclopedic articles, the customary degree of GNG compliance is something less that 100% compliance with a strict interpretation of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good faith few-minute web search, including in the local language, should be enough BEFORE for GNG-dependent articles. But [some people's interpretation of] NEXIST makes it seem like even this isn't enough to switch the onus onto NRVE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole spectrum includes both ends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree as it is completely topic dependent. For instance there was a very old football league recently at AfD, and a good faith web search mentioned here wouldn't bring anything up, but a historical newspaper search brings up the fact it was covered by many different 19th century newspapers. This is why older Olympians were a problem - once we actually started doing the research to show that many of them were never significantly covered, even using a lower historical standard, the SNG collapsed. At the same time, we still need to be able to use common sense even if SIGCOV isn't strictly met for topics outside the Anglosphere. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about that whole spectrum of AFDers, I wonder if WP:NEXIST should remind people of that intermediate step, the {{notability}} tag. An AFD on a weakly sourced article with an equally weak BEFORE search is much more sympathetic if the article has been tagged as having doubtful notability for several years.

On some of these niche subjects (e.g., all Olympic athlete stubs from Jordan, by an editor who speaks no Arabic and searches no Jordanian sources), it would also be more sympathetic if you make a list of "bad" articles and deliver them to relevant WikiProjects with a note like "It's January now. I think all of these are candidates for deletion. But I know I can't read Arabic, and I know it's a hundred articles, so I'd like to give you extra time. I'll come back in a hundred days and start sending one per day to AFD for anything that doesn't have a new source added." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never AFD'd an article except under NPP work, so my experience is somewhat centric on that. On articles that are only a few months old, there are more options including tagging or draftifying. When an article has been in the que for a long time, it's typically been tagged (or looked at) already and there are really only two options....give it a final OK, or AFD it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this above, but this is part of the calculus too. Tagging it and giving it time is an important intermediate step. Especially if other editors are brought into the process. Then an AFD is much more reasonable. Could they still be wrong? Maybe. But I'm less likely to believe WP:NEXIST for an article that has been tagged for multiple years... Even less likely if multiple editors have come to the same conclusion, between the tag, the talk page, and the AFD itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor deleted had referenced entries onto the above named list. The list is a fork from the main page Hamilton Academy. I have reverted the edit and asked for a consensus be discussed at the Talk page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been prompted by an assumption that "notable" means "blue linked". Perhaps someone would be interested in glancing through WP:N to see if we address that distinction directly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This question is regarding the notability of Indian Film producers (Example: C. R. Manohar) and Indian film production companies (Example: KVN Productions). From what I have seen in the last few years, any film producer seems to automatically become notable if their film wins a Best Film award, as wiki editors generally credit the producer and director for it. When it comes to film production companies, which I believe fall under NCORP, articles are often created when two to three films produced by the company have their own articles.

• Are these films attributed to the production house in terms of establishing notability?
• Is the coverage of these films used to establish the notability of the production house?
• If so, does this mean every production company with a couple of films will have its own article?
• Is the coverage and notability of a film inherited to establish the notability of its production company?

Note: The above examples have nothing to do with the scenario, they have been randomly picked from their respective categories. In many cases, the production company itself may not have any information available about it rather only about its films. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For businesses, the only thing that matters is whether you have independent reliable sources that discuss the business in detail (WP:CORPDEPTH). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will obviously have independent, reliable reviews of the films they have produced. The question here is whether these reviews count towards GNG when establishing notability for a production house. It would be great if you could be more precise here, as reviews and other sources generally discuss the film rather than the production house itself. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Notability is not inherited. If there are no reliable sources putting forth "significant detail" on the production companies themselves, an article on them cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 10:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Can you provide examples of independent, reliable reviews for film companies? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not expect a "review" for a company; film reviews are for the films themselves. Two examples of an independent, secondary source that demonstrates reliability for a film company is David A. Price's book, The Pixar Touch (for Pixar) and Steven Bingen's The MGM Effect: How a Hollywood Studio Changed the World (for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer).

Less famous studios are less likely to have whole books written about them, but magazine articles with a similar focus on the business are equally acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, with respect to WP:PRODUCER, can an individual have an article if they have successfully produced two films that pass WP:NFILM? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like the word "Indian" in the title of this section. Notability should not depend on where a company is based. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The number of press articles generated for Indian media companies and the number of production company articles that were kept on AfD for producing notable films(editor consensus > policy based arguments) are, I believe a lot higher than the rest of the world, which is why I mentioned Indian. Or maybe it was a one-off instance that happened long ago and I am remembering it wrong. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Notability of a group of articles about lists inside Category:Military comparisons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an article does not meet the guidelines, should I delete it? BroBro12345 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete it. You can nominate it for proposed deletion or start a deletion discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]