Forum:CT:Remove "Notability requirements" section from Deletion Policy

Forums > Consensus track > CT:Remove "Notability requirements" section from Deletion Policy

As has been pointed out in recent discussions, Wookieepedia:Deletion policy currently only has two bullet points under the "Notability requirements" header. The first is:

• Notability of an article is determined via the Google test. Articles failing this test (usually fanon) are deleted.

This standard was created in the earliest days of the Wook, when there was more information on Star Wars elsewhere on the Internet than on our site. Clearly, those days are long since past, and there are countless articles on Wookieepedia and its mirrors that are the sole sources of information on their topics available on the internet. This is not even counting our many conjecturally-titled articles, which describe unnamed but nonetheless canon topics using, by necessity, titles that are non-canon. The Google Test hasn't been used as a criterion for article deletion for half a decade or more, and it is high time it be removed from our policies, especially since, as shown in the abovelinked discussions, it's being used to hold clearly-canonical material hostage.

The second bullet point is narrowly focused on fan articles:

• If the article is of a fan site, it must meet the Notability of fan projects requirements, and the article regarding it must be written from a Neutral point of view. Otherwise, the article will undergo the Trash compactor process, and the site gets a link at the List of fan sites page.

This bullet point simply restates that fan articles must adhere to other policies already detailed elsewhere on the site. It's redundant, and if the obsolete Google Test bullet point is removed, it would be confusing standing on its own as the sole element discussing notability in our deletion policy.

I propose removing the entire "Notability requirements" section. If need be, it can be recreated at a future time if other notability criteria are adopted, but for right now, it is performing no useful function, and the only unique part of it is serving as a bad-faith lever in site discussions. That said, for completeness, I am also adding options should users feel one or the other of the above bullet points should be retained. jSarek (talk) 08:21, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support removing entire section

1. As nominator. jSarek (talk) 08:21, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
2. Makes sense. Trip391 (talk) 08:37, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
3. The google test has become useless, as simply put we are the most complete Star Wars encyclopedia, period. As stated above, what other sites would use the same conjectural names as we do. Supreme Emperor (talk) 10:13, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
4. You beat me to it, jSarek.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 14:24, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
5. Yep. Google tests would actually harm our site now, and the second bit is redundant per jSarek's explanation. ~Savage 15:20, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
6. A Google test should NOT be the factor that determines whether or not a Star Wars article is notable. Something notable could have occurred in the Star Wars universe and it is possible that there are no other sites on the internet that refer to it. That doesn't mean it's not notable. As for the second point, it can be moved to another section where it would make more sense or simply removed completely.--Richterbelmont10 ^{(come in R2!)} 16:10, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
7. I'm ok with this option, if only if it means we might start addressing WP:NFP, which has been weak since its inception. What started out as a decent policy to keep stupidly ridiculous fan project articles off the wiki now has the unfortunate effect of keeping stupid things like this on the wiki. We probably couldn't realistically delete that article at present because enough people would vote for keeping it just because of WP:NFP's LFL-recognition clause, which is ridiculous. And this is why I oppose a notability policy, because it will never perfectly cover every circumstance and will invariably end up keeping out more valid articles than it should. Or, in WP:NFP's case, keeping in more stupid articles than it should. If we had case-by-case flexibility with fan projects, I imagine we could send Phineas & Ferb off to the Fan Wiki, where it belongs. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:58, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
   • I'd like to determine everything case-by-case too, and that used to work on here. The problem is that it no longer works because Wookieepedia has been invaded by too many hyperinclusionists that, in the absence of a notability policy to guide their votes, will automatically vote to keep anything and everything, making it virtually impossible to get a consensus to delete anything in-universe without a notability policy. Hence why we need a notability policy. —MJ— _{War Room} 18:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
     • You mistake a policy that "dictates" their votes for a policy that "guides" their votes. An imperfect notability policy forces people into a corner with how they are allowed to vote because it allows no flexibility exceptions for the instances in which the policy does not perfectly cover every circumstance, as with this Phineas & Ferb article, which should be deleted but can't because of WP:NFP's restrictive imperfection. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:59, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
8. Ok JangFett ^(Talk) 20:33, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support removing only the first bullet point

1. The Google test is not an actively used policy, and would be actively harmful if enforced now. Reminding users of the second bullet point may be of value, so it might as well be kept in the policy. I am 100% convinced Wookieepedia needs some sort of notability standard for in-Universe articles, but the Google test is not it. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
2. Heh. I was just contemplating a CT on removing this when I first woke up 30 minutes ago. I'll decide whether the second point needs addressing later. Cade Calrayn 14:03, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
3. Agreed, although the Google test is good for fanon, a lot of conjectural articles probably haven't had a chance to get disseminated out past here yet. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 14:41, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
4. Per Cade. I'll consider the other part at another time.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 14:54, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
5. Per Silly Dan. Regardless of whether or not we make a notability policy, it shouldn't change the fact that the Google test policy should not be there, so no real reason to oppose removing the first bullet point at least. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 14:59, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
6. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 15:21, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
7. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:17, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removing any of it

1. No-no-no. We need more Notability requirements rules, not less. No fanon seems to be evident and universally accepted. Fan projects are also clearly defined after several itterations, so far so good. Now, merchandise stuff seems to be exported to merchandise wiki on a pretty much case by case basis, I'd like so see clearly writtem rules on which stuff stays and which goes. The other subjects you already know my opinion on. Oh, and articles in question are neither held hostage nor clearly-canonical. My notability suggestions may have failed already, but as of this writing they have 42-46% support of all voters. No majority and not even 50/50 split, but their notabiltiy is clearly debated. LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:59, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
2. Agreed. I don't like the idea of stripping down our notability rules to nothing and then forever continuing with our garbage case-by-case basis that inconsistently sees lightsabers kept one week and deleted the next. Yes, the google test is outdated, but we should be replacing our notability rules with something better, not just plain getting rid of them. Menkooroo (talk) 11:22, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
   • I think this will probably be my final comment on the whole notability fiasco --- we absolutely need a notability policy, and that's why I voted oppose. If we kill our current notability requirements, then nobody will make any effort to write new ones, and we'll be stuck with our current case-by-case basis. Why do I think the case-by-case basis is a bad thing? Take a look at some of the reasons that relatively new users have given for voting "keep" in recent TCs: "It is definitely interesting." "It's a well-written article." "Some people could find it interesting." "We're a wiki, for crying out loud. We're supposed to have articles in it for people to read." These are all, to be frank, hilariously bad reasons for voting to keep an article --- none of them have anything to do with the articles' notability. Our standards for what deserves an article seem to lower every year, and if we continue with the case-by-case basis, then our standards are only going to keep getting worse as new users join the site and view the then-current standards as the norm. That's why we need some hard-and-fast rules. Otherwise we'll one day have articles on Luke's severed hand, Luke's prosthetic hand, Han's vest, Mara's red hair, etc. Those are admittedly sensational examples, but a notability policy will prevent our standards from falling anywhere near that low. Menkooroo (talk) 15:07, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
3. For now. I can't in good conscience support removing a notability requirement of any kind, even one as bad and outdated as this, until new, modern requirements are passed. Regardless of what some people seem to think, we need a full-fledged notability policy, and perhaps the threat of this one being enforced will be the only way to get people to agree on something and stop the ridiculous keep reasoning that Menk referred to. —MJ— _Comlink 17:57, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
   • So what exactly are you trying to say? That you would in good conscience start deleting out of hand copious amounts of perfectly legitimate canon articles with canon names and canon descriptions from canon sources just because they don't show up on a Google search engine result? Because that's exactly what this policy amounts to (as Mauser correctly points out here, though I like to think none of our admins would be brainless enough to actually enforce it). You're smarter than that, Jonathan. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:15, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
     • I never said that I would personally enforce it, but perhaps the simple threat of the Google test hanging over everyone's heads will push people toward a permanent solution rather than this Band-Aid fix. —MJ— ^{Training Room} 18:30, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
       • And what happens if someone does start enforcing it? And even if they don't? You're going to feel comfortable voting to maintain this ludicrous policy just to prove a point? Jonathan, no one is ever going to start supporting your guys' notability efforts through threats and force, especially one as hollow and stupid as this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:35, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The whole deletion policy may need rewriting anyway, with or without a successful notability policy CT. It should expand on the use of {{verify}} and the similar {{Notability}} for fan topics, point to the image use policy for media deletion, and maybe even say a little about user page deletion and subpage deletion. But that can wait. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not voting on this (yet). I see merits of both sides of the argument. My initial reaction was that just because a policy rule is not utilized or invoked in the modern era, it doesn't mean that it should be removed. See the 3rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the other side, it looks like making the "Google Test" a required factor for whether an article stays or goes is completely obsolete and impractical. - Esjs^(Talk) 18:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)