Wikipedia talk:Notability

How niche is too niche?

How broad does coverage need to be to satisfy the GNG? Would a few independent and reliable niche-market sources suffice? Is a video game notable if it’s only discussed by websites that cater to gamers? Are there any WP:pages I missed that discuss this? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If a certain field has a wide variety of sources (as like video games), that means its likely not niche. On the other hand, if there's only one work that covers the field that is underwater basketweaving, that's probably a bit too niche to be considered notable without non-nice sources. --Masem (t) 01:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, gaming was probably too mainstream of an example. What about a small number of established reliable sources that specialize in covering underwater basketweaving?

Or what about non-English media that’s covered only by English-language sources that specifically cover non-English media? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's really hard to draw a line, but one thing I would consider that if something is not niche is there is infrequent but sufficient coverage of the field in more mainstream sources to show that the field has attention, even if 90%+ of our coverage of topics in the field are limited to the field's only works. If the championship of underwater basketweaving appears in national newspapers every few years, that's something, for example. Can't give exact numbers, obviously. --Masem (t) 01:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so we’ll say underwater basketweaving itself is plainly notable. But are topics in the field notable? Should we have an article about the AquaWeave 900x that was thoroughly reviewed in virtually every underwater-basketweaving publication (but nowhere else)? Or the HydroTurbo Duo Pro that only a few of them discuss in any depth? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying is that if you can show a reasonable handful of topics get some coverage outside the field, and you have a means to determine reliability of the niche sources, then its reasonable to have articles on notable topics within that field. That said, you can't go overboard. The best example I do know I can point to is the MMA field. Several years ago there were problems with proliferation of articles from this rather niche area, and caused a number of problems. It did end up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and so you might find more history there (Talk page archives) or looking at the archives at WP:AN. --Masem (t) 02:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Remember that something may not be notable enough for its own article, but it can still be noteworthy enough to discuss in the parent article. If the new “Hydro-Weaveomatic 500” is only reviewed in the niche sources... but THEY make a huge deal about it... it probably isn’t notable enough for its own article, but it probably IS noteworthy enough to be discussed in some detail in the main “Underwater basketweaving” article. Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, but what I was wondering is whether the article should be kept or merged, not whether we should discuss it at all. Thanks, though! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the concrete example! I’m trying to find a universal rule of thumb I could take away from that, but it’s not coming. But the reason I asked was, there’s an anime series I’d never heard of, and it seems to have zero mainstream coverage; its article lists only a few anime-specialist sources, so I’m not sure it’s even that well known in animedom. They are well-established, well-known sources, though. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Anime would not be a niche subject for Wikipedia. We even have a whole Wikiproject for it - see WP:ANIME. In fact, you might want to ask there (on their talk page) for help to find sources. Also keep in mind that we do not require sources to be in English; so if the anime is well-known in Japan, you can use Japanese anime-specialist sources for it. (This happens often with video games that only get a Japanese release and we have to rely on sources from Japan for this.) --Masem (t) 02:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that the entire field is niche (there’s plenty of various mainstream coverage); the coverage of the particular subject, this one series, is limited to that field’s niche (the publications explicitly specializing in it). Like a little-known indie game that had a tiny story on GameSpot and not much else. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If the anime itself is reported about in RSes in the field of anime, then its reasonable to presume we can have a standalone on it. --Masem (t) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems a little generous, but all right. I’d require some kind of mainstream/generalist mention if I made the rules. Guess I’m too exclusionist. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would say, a topic is a niche if every secondary source is authored by someone connected to the topic, and to every other author of any secondary source. Thus, a niche topic is one with zero independent secondary sources, when the bare minimum for a topic is two. Such a niche topic would therefore have to be merged into a broader article. Do you have any borderline examples for commenting on? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to redefining "independent" to mean "ignorant". Independent sources are sources not by the topic or its creators. They are not required to be sources by people who don't have any connection to the subject. For instance, textbooks written by experts on their subject are perfectly valid secondary sources. Or, to get closer to the subject of the article: reviews of anime issues or series in regularly-published magazines devoted to anime (that are not published by the same company as the anime in question) are probably valid secondary sources. We shouldn't require our sources to be written by people who have no connection to anime as a whole. Web sites can also be valid, but it depends on how close they are to the magazine model: big web sites that regularly publish well-edited stories under multiple levels of editorial control probably count, but someone's personal blog or a fan forum probably doesn't count. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The way I took his comment was, if we had a review written by an intern who worked on the anime, and a review written by the director’s best friend, and an article by that reviewer’s cousin… that would probably not be notable. That kind of “connected.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, those would be not independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I hope you didn’t really think I meant your reading of what I wrote, David. User:67.14.236.50 understood me right. The sort of case where the only people who write about the topic are employees, ex-employees, or family members. A review of the local lapidary club by the wife of the secretary/treasurer, for example. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oxford says a niche is “a specialized segment of the market for a particular kind of product or service.” What you describe is a rather extreme example of that. But no, the article I was thinking of does have more than two IRSes. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • A topic without two reliable independent sources is not suitable for its own article, there is no need to consider “niche”. I don’t think niche is a characteristic needing specific attention, the GNG is a better requirement than “non-niche”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

rcb team

which player who play for rcb next year Kanha chauhan (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a specific article in mind?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sekou Franklin?

Hi. Could someone please take a look at this and let me know if you think Sekou Franklin is notable or not? If you look him up on Google News, he comes up a lot for his social justice activism, which is how I came to hear about him. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC to update NOTDIR to preempt GNG for lists of transportation service destinations

There is an RFC to update WP:NOTDIR to state that wikipedia does not include lists of transportation service destinations, even if the individual services pass WP:GNG. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for that, really. Passing GNG is doesn't guarantee inclusion, just allows for it. Articles that pass GNG, but fail other content policies, such as NOT, are still not acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Massive change to WP:CORP proposed

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#RfC: Adoption of the re-written NCORP guideline.

It is a massive proposal that, among other things, looks like it will remove Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports teams and all schools (not just K–12 schools). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh... there isn't a lot that is new in the proposal... most of it simply reorganizes language that was already in the guideline. Of course, the reorganization might have unintended consequences, so more eyes would be helpful... but let's not panic about it. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Best-selling book" as a notability criterion

How much weight should be given to notability claims regarding a subject writing a "best-selling book" (or BEING a "best-selling book"), given how the system is often manipulated? For example:

• This Wall Street Journal article, "Here's How You Buy Your Way Onto The New York Times Bestsellers List" details how writers can claim to be "NY Times best-selling author" by writing a check.

• This article on how a first-time writer and publisher got on -- and off -- the NY Times YA besetselling list. Despite the obvious manipulation being exposed, Lani Sarem still calls herself a best-selling writer.

• And then there's ResultSource: The company states "'We create campaigns that reach a specific goal, like: "On the bestsellers list," or "100,000 copies sold.'" For example, for a negotiated fee ResultSource will guarantee that a book becomes a bestseller. It does this through bulk book buying programs designed to manipulate the metrics used by Nielsen BookScan and the New York Times Best Seller list, among other strategies.

It seems to me merely appearing on a best-selling books list is essentially a meaningless assertion of notability. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. "Best-selling" is shallow-disguised prmotion speak. It verges to pseudo-objective meaninglessness. "Most sold", whether by number or price, for a defined time period, is objective, but the present-tense continuing "selling" infers current continuing sales and it almost certainly connected to a motivation to promote.

What is interesting to Wikipedia-notability is not facts, whether subjective or objective, but who is saying what. For any notability claim, Who is commenting? Are they reliable, reputable, independent? Are they commenting directly on the subject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't really matter. The fundamental underpinning of notability guidelines is not "how significant or important are you?" but "has the world noticed you?" Those who are listed on the NYT Bestseller Lists gain the world's notice, regardless of how they got there ... the same way that musicians who got on the Billboard lists gained notice regardless of how many DJs got kickbacks, the same that politicians in notable posts gained notice regardless of the manipulations of local "machines." We don't use the NYT lists to judge the merit of a book, we use it to judge the book's notability, and a book is notable not because lots of people (allegedly) buy it in any given month, but because it's on that list. Ravenswing 03:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'd be very suspicious of a book claimed as "best-selling" that doesn't eventually have multiple in-depth published book reviews. And if it does have those reviews, they (and not the sales figures) are what provides notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Best sellers are notable. A best selling book is absolutely always notable. Provided that you understand that the expression "best seller" refers to a book that has actually achieved a sufficiently high degree of (real) sales, and not merely been included in a sham list or bought by its own author etc. The expression "best seller" has nothing at all to do with promotion. There are several objective scholarly definitions of "best seller" proposed by academics. These are based on, for example, achieving a particular absolute number of sales, achieving a certain proportion of total sales, or achieving a level of sales that is considered exceptionally large by the standards of the time and place where the sales are occurring. See, for example, Greenspan and Rose, Book History and Steinberg, Five Hundred Years of Printing. Wikipedia certainly does accept that a topic can be objectively notable in the absence of 'significant coverage'. That is why we have SNG. This is necessary for a number of reasons. For example, the reliable sources available to our editors have epic systematic bias against less recent history, poor countries, non-anglophone topics, and anything faintly intelligent. They also fail to provide adequate coverage of topics that are genuinely important. We also need a way of dealing with deletionist trolls at AfD who have no intention of looking for sources and who will refuse to accept that coverage is significant no matter how much is presented. Such deletionist trolls need to be silenced with objective precisely worded criteria that they cannot twist and wikilawyer. And of course GNG is in some respects seriously unsound. There is for example no justification for demanding secondary sources. Professional historians regard over reliance on secondary sources as a sign of serious incompetence. And the theory of primary, secondary and tertiary sources invented by historians has no application whatsoever to any discipline other than history, and the way GNG seeks to apply that theory to everything other than history is pure WP:RANDYism. (It doesn't help that most of our editors have no idea what a secondary source is, either). To be honest, our policies and guidelines contain quite a few ideas that are pure 'wikiality' and have nothing to do with real scholarship. You should not be suspicious of un reviewed best sellers. My sources tell me that "low brow" best selling books "frequently" receive zero book reviews of any kind (P N Furbank, "The Twentieth Century Best Seller", in Boris Ford (ed), The Pelican Guide to Literature, Penguin Books, 1961, volume 7 ("The Modern Age"), page 430.) I don't see any reason to assume this indicates anything wrong with the sales figures. It might simply mean that some book reviewers consider that sort of literature to be beneath them. Or it might mean that the sort of people who read that kind of literature do not read book reviews (this will certainly be true of at least some children's books as very young children do not read book reviews). A book that appears on a very prominent bestseller list such as the NYT will very likely be notable because appearing on that list will make it famous. That sort of coverage certainly counts towards GNG. How that coverage has been obtained is of no relevance to GNG. I think I should point out there are some problems with the article ResultSource. The link to WSJ article in the first footnote brings up a page that says that the WSJ article no longer exists or is currently unavailable. This makes it impossible to assess the accuracy of our article. James500 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)