Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)

Since this is far from my area of expertise I'm wondering if anyone can help with the notability of these two entries Shorty Awards and Foodimentary. The latter of these strikes me as non-notable. There is no reliable independent coverage of the subject. However, Foodimentary has apparently won a Shorty Award, which would satisfy #2 here if the Shorty Awards are "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Any thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight that, as well as winning Shorty Awards, Foodimentary has had 3 articles written where it is the sole subject. One by Epicurious, one by SlashFood, and one by FineCooking. There's been some debate as to the reliability of these as sources though (see the talk page).Eikou (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Eikou please provide the links here. They are not "articles" in my mind. Epicurious is a website known mostly for its user generated content, and I see no indication that conducting and publishing an interview on that website meets WP:RS criteria. I see no indication that SlashFood is more than a food blog. Is it an RS? FInally, the Fine Cooking reference is to an online blurb written by an intern and not an article published in the magazine itself.Griswaldo (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Epicurious Article, SlashFood article, Fine Cooking Article. By the RS guidelines, I would say Epicurious is reliable. The SlashFood article, upon review, I could agree about. The Fine Cooking article, as mentioned on the discussion page for Foodimentary, is indeed written by an intern. Also as mentioned, I've found nothing in the RS guidelines that should make the fact that it was written by an intern invalidate the article. When an intern submits an article to the company they work for, the company still has to review and approve it. It would seem to me that regardless of the author, the article carries the reliability of the magazine that published it.Eikou (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If winning an award does not result in significant coverage in reliable sources, you can be pretty sure that the award is not "a well-known and independent award". I don't see anything in the Foodimentary article that suggests it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, though maybe that information is buried in all the ridiculous trivia about "Had a tweet quoted in the LA Times blog" and "Mentioned in a blog on Cincinnati.com". Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement, "If winning an award does not result in significant coverage in reliable sources, you can be pretty sure that the award is not "a well-known and independent award"." comes from opinion and not policy. In fact, it's almost contradictory to policy, or at the least suggests policy is redundant. Besides that, if you Google "foodimentary wins a shorty award", you get 3070 results to peruse through of coverage. Not all of them are very reliable, but it does constitute some argument for how "well-known" the shorty awards are, and it's certainly "independent". Maybe what's in the Wikipedia article isn't the best reflection of reliable coverage, but that's something we can change. Choosing a random source from the Google search that seems reliable to me, I found this. I wouldn't say the article itself is the ultimate reference as to what reliable sources are available for the article. Much love, Eikou (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post. I just found this article that seems to be from a major newspaper called "Biotech Week". I thought it may be better than the Knight Foundation article. They're both from the Google search. Much love, Eikou (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting

As part of my recent request for adminship, I was asked to review the page at a copyediting perspective, which I did so in this edit. Below is a list of changes made within the one edit.

I made the use of serial commas consistent throughout the text.
I removed various instances of repeated spaces within the code. This has no effect on the article's appearance, but explains the apparent lack of changes in some highlighted regions in the diff.
I replaced all instances of "our" with "the" or "Wikipedia's" to remove feeling of exclusivity.
I clarified the first sentence of the article. "Any form of web-specific content" was replaced with "a form of web-specific content" for precision of meaning and to illustrate (yet again) that the guideline does not apply in every situation.
I rephrased the line defining "web concept" in the first paragraph ("any content [...] of this guideline, as web content") to remove awkwardness.
In the second lead paragraph, the phrase "Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy" was awkward-sounding, especially in printed versions of this page where there are no wikilinks. Because the policy is not named by its "true name" ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox"), I preceded the phrase with "the idea that"; thus, it reads, "the idea that Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy...".
In the final lead paragraph (in the part describing {{notability}}), I changed "to make other editors aware of the problem" to "to alert other editors to the problem" for concision (the third "C" of copyediting: "clear, correct, concise, complete, and consistent").
I made the sentence in final lead paragraph about AfD slightly more concise and straightforward.
I made the final line of the final lead paragraph (about WP:PROD and WP:SPEEDY) more accurate (explained PROD further to include the need for lack of controversy), clear (removed possible ambiguity), and detailed (added link to WP:A7 so editors can find further reference).
Last line, first paragraph "No inherent notability": I made the first letter of "see" lowercase for grammatical/stylistic reasons.
I removed "just as individuals can be notable" from the second paragraph in "No inherent notability", since it seems to be used as a sort of a proof for the idea that "smaller websites can be notable". It's not wholly related or analogous.
I reworded the last paragraph (or line) in "No inherited notability" more concise.
I improved the flow of the list of "reliable published works" by using a more parallel structure.
I corrected word meaning in the second bullet in the "except the following" numbered list in criterion #1 by changing the word "or" to "and"—all exceptions apply simultaneously, not just one at a time.
I fixed footnote #2 by correcting the meaning of the sentence. The article about the content should be redirected, not the web content!
I "fixed" the spelling of "encyclopedia" in footnote #5 (i.e., "encyclopaedia"). Yes, I know, "encyclopaedia" is a legitimate spelling alternative for the word, but honestly? Like using "lede paragraph" instead of "lead paragraph", it really has no beneficial effect anyway.
I clarified, slightly, the meaning of various sentences in footnote #5.
Footnote #6 may in fact be redundant.

If anyone has any objections or comments, feel free to discuss them below. Guoguo12 (Talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I semi-object to removal of "our", and think we should go in the other direction (occasionally, but at least once per page) in policy and guideline pages (but not wikiproject advice pages, or in essays), because it has exactly the opposite effect on the former two types of page: It's describing our best practices as a community (in the latter two cases, it would be interpreted as WP:OWN nonsense by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-pushing WP:FACTION, of course). But whether to use "our" more in WP:POLICY pages is probably a matter for a WP:VPPOL RfC. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

With blog notability, aim for inclusivity

I think Wikipedia needs to look at the issue of blog notability differently. We are in uncharted territory, and the rules need to ensure inclusiveness and diversity if WP is to be truly comprehensive in scope.

This isn't about me and my blog, but I'm using myself as an example to illustrate the difficulty of establishing notability under existing rules.

With no professional background in books or publishing, I started my blog about Australian literature three years ago. However, In the last twelve months, my blog has been linked to an American university as a resource, my reviews are featured on senior secondary school reading lists, I've been featured as a blogger of note in two other lit blogs (one US, one UK), and on the strength of my knowledge about OzLit, I've been an invited guest at two major literary award ceremonies, suggested as a judge for a major award, invited to speak at a writers' festival, and asked to set up a 'shadow' panel for the Miles Franklin Award (like the shadow Giller Prize panel). (Almost) every Australian publisher of books knows who I am. I have a Google page ranking of 5.

But how would anybody assessing the notability of my blog know any of this (except for the page ranking)? The people who have approached me have done it privately. I don't brag about it on my blog, and I have never been mentioned in the national media. (After all, traditional media journalists see bloggers as rivals, and many are scornful about amateurs).

Literary fiction competes with general fiction for media attention and although it has great cultural significance it gets very little airspace. Australian Literature is an even smaller niche. A small team of Aussie litlovers have worked tirelessly to have our notable authors included in Wikipedia because they weren't there. Anyone using WP to find out more about AusLit would want to find links to external resources such as reference books - and litblogs.

I'm just a middle sized fish in the small Australian Literature pond that is swamped by oceans of US and UK lit. I'm sure that Wikipedia wants to ensure that it is inclusive of blogs that matter in countries outside the Big 2. There are excellent, high quality blogs that offer significant information about the literary scene (and other fields too, I expect) in Africa, Canada, and India. For many young people, online reviews are the sole source of information that they use. Indeed in many cases book reviews on litblogs are taking up the space vacated by traditional media as it becomes uneconomic for print to carry them. Like the blogs that are documenting the Arab spring, they are a phenomena that have great cultural significance. But unlike a blog about middle eastern politics, their notability is not easy for an outsider to establish.

From a personal point of view I don't really care if my blog makes it as notable or not, but I am particularly concerned about the principle of inclusiveness, especially regarding litblogs from Africa which are documenting the highly significant growth of African literature written by Africans. I am worried that these may not meet the notability criteria as they seem to be at the moment.

I don't know what the answer is except to suggest that the rules should be flexible and open-ended rather than creating fences to keep out minorities.

Ok, off my soapbox!

--ANZLitLovers (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Imagine that you have to write an article about your blog (not about you). Imagine that the article must be fully sourced, and that every single source must meet all of these requirements:

It must be a third-party or WP:Independent source. (So you can't use any source by you, including the blog.)
It must be a Wikipedia:Published source that is still accessible to the public. (So a speech is useless [unless it was recorded and published elsewhere], but a webpage describing the speech is fine.)
The source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
It must be published by a reputable publishing house (rather than by the author).
It must have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

How many sources talking about your blog and meeting all of these requirements could you find? How long would the resulting article be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more fences. It doesn't have anything to do with minorities, it has to do with demonstrated importance. While the description of the small niche success you have had with your blog must be personally satisfying, it's a far cry from something an encyclopedia should recognize. We're an encyclopedia, first and foremost. If you think you can get listed in any other encyclopedia in the world, start there first and let us know when it happens. Don't just assume that because we're online that our standards should be lower. DreamGuy (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My post-RfC comment at #RfC: Notability of YouTubers exactly covers this, as well, pretty much word-for-word, other than the quote from the OP in the RFC. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If a website has a lot of famous/notable people reviewed there, shouldn't it be considered notable?

Would having a significant number of notable people being interviewed on a website not confirm notability of that website? Any objection towards that being added to this guideline's page under web content? Just because the mainstream news media doesn't cover certain things, doesn't mean it isn't notable. Dream Focus 04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Why would it? That in itself doesn't mean anything. I don't know what you have in mind here, but, say, a website for a science fiction convention can post a lot of interviews of famous people, or just some random personal blog can track down a bunch of famous people by email and put up some slapdash interviews. We let stuff up that isn't particularly notable just because the guidelines here for inclusion are already overly generous, let's not open the door even more. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Loads and loads and loads of famous people have taken a dump at any particular roadside rest-stop. Notability does not rub off from the notable onto other things. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is WP:WEB criterion three really necessary?

Consensus supports the idea that C3 should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Room for Magic (2nd nomination) has got me thinking about criterion three, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The webcomic in question doesn't seem notable by any common-sense measure - no hits on Google News or Books, no claim in the article of wider influence - and yet criterion three gives it a claim to notability under our guideline, as argued in the previous AfD discussion from 2006. Is there any actual need for this criterion? It seems to me that anything worthy of an article would already pass criterion one by being covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. Let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The line in the policy is to allow articles to be created on works (or authors of works) whose narrow audience is so limited as to not attract published analysis, praise, or criticism (what we Wikipedians call "coverage"). The criterion we use is whether there is not editorial control exercised by the host of the Web content. For an example not related to the case presented, sites that aggregate political or popular culture opinion that add or remove contributors based on web site's subjective criteria meet (3).(National Review Online,Huffington Post, etc.)

When it comes to web comics, I am not a subject matter expert, however, I expect that there's enough experience among Wikipedia editors now to know what web sites are not mere pass-throughs (i.e. WP:SELFPUBLISH) but attempt to host the most popular or highest quality comics and apply the (3) criteria accordingly. patsw (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked into this a little deeper. It seems that a workable solution would be to incorporate a short description of No Room for Magic into the article describing its host, Keenspot. Alas, the article is deleted but I will make my suggestion on that article's talk page. patsw (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Patsw, and thanks for the comments. You said that that criterion #3 "is to allow articles to be created on works (or authors of works) whose narrow audience is so limited as to not attract published analysis, praise, or criticism". I agree that this is what the policy intends - my point was that I don't see why topics that have such a narrow audience should have an article in the first place. To put it another way, we often point users to WP:INHERITED, which says that "notability is not inherited". I know that the link is an essay, not a guideline, but why should we make an exception to this principle for web content? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The essay you mention is confusing and contradictory. To apply what I believe to the case here, if there's a consensus of Wikipedia editors that editorial judgment (or quality control) of Keenspot is good enough for them, then it would be sufficient to use the appearance of a web comic in Keenspot as the threshold for inclusion of that web comic as an article without having to make judgments on each new web comic as it appears. I don't think that consensus is there. patsw (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

About patsw's comment: If the web content has never attracted "published analysis, praise, or criticism (what we Wikipedians call "coverage")", then how the heck are we supposed to write an article about it? Just chuck NPOV out the window and write the whole thing from what the content's creators say about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In theory, Wikipedia editors in a narrow subject, use the editorial filter of organizations, aggregators, syndicates, etc. to determine if a topic merits an article. To pick one example in an area I am familiar with, Carrie Lukas has an article. I conjecture that her connection to the Goldwater Institute and National Review Online have more weight than coverage of Carrie Lukas in published sources. patsw (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, my question isn't about how to determine if a topic merits an article. I'm talking about the practical aspect of putting text into the article. If there are actually zero independent sources with any significant coverage, how exactly do you write the article? How do you decide what to say after the first half sentence? I know how to get through This is a web comic", but what comes after those words, given that you have zero sources except the comic's own website or other sources very closely related to the comic?

Pretend it's not a web comic. Pretend it's a comic strip printed in the newspaper, and it happens that the only sources you've been able to find are (1) the comic strip, (2) the comic strip's website, and (3) stuff published by the syndicate. That's zero independent sources. How do you write that article? How do you write a neutral article, rather than an unbalanced regurgitation of what the syndicate's marketing department (and your own original research from reading the comic strips) wants you to say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, this criterion is not necessary. The two examples given, No Room for Magic being published by Keenspot and Carrie Lukas being published by National Review Online, don't support the need for this criterion. Consensus above and at AFD is publishing on Keenspot is not an indicator of notability. For Carrie Lukas, not every National Review contributor is notable, let alone every National Review Online contributor; if the notability of Carrie Lukas were discussed, I'd expect it to revolve around being published by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. Further, I cannot find other notability guidelines as broad or vague as this. Neither WP:AUTHOR, WP:NBOOK nor WP:NOTFILM have a "respected and independent publisher" criterion. The closest I can find is WP:BAND's "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." That is much more narrow than this WP:WEB criterion (there are only 4 major labels). So, if being published by a major book publisher or a major film studio is not an indicator of notability, I don't see how the lesser standard of publishing their ebooks or online videos on any "respected and independent website" can be an indicator of notability. Similarly, if a band who has just released one album on a major label is not notable, I don't see how they would be notable for releasing mp3s on any "respected and independent website." Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete it. It's pretty clear from the discussion above that this criterion 3 is incompatible with WP:NPOV or at least it can be easily interpreted that way ("medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" = IP protocol?). There are tons of problematic and obscure websites out there (racist etc.) that describe themselves as something else than what they actually are. Without some independent coverage as to their nature, just copying their self-description to Wikipedia means transforming Wikipedia into a free advertisement venue for fringe stuff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
SNGs like this are meant to outline criteria that if a topic meets one of these, there will likely be sufficient coverage (existing or in the future) to allow the article to eventually comply with the GNG. This particular clause gives me no impression that sources would immediately follow by meeting this mark. Thus, it is appropriate to delete. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
~~All websites are distributed via the media of HTTP, which is respected and independent of 99.99% of websites. Are 99.99% of websites notable? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)~~
I can see where you're coming from here, but any confusion about the guideline referring to things as broad as IP protocol and HTTP is mostly because I only quoted the first part of the criterion above. The full version is more specific, and I will include it here:

The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;^[1] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, Facebook, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).

[1]
Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that Wikipedia's coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial.

From this version it's quite clear that the "medium" referred to in the guideline must be some kind of online publisher, so we should bear this in mind when debating it. Apologies if I misled anyone with selective quoting. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn. I shouldn't have been sarcastic in the first place. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That could be made clearer by changing "trivial" to "nonselective". However, it's still unclear why this criterion is needed from the example given. The podcast of Ricky Gervais can be covered in his biography. The only case where a separate article is needed is when substantial independent commentary appears about the podcast itself. Even clarified, the criterion seems to encourage micro-stubs on works of otherwise notable authors. I admit I'm somewhat biased against such disjointed treatment of someone's works, and I've redirected some stubs like that the past. Alternatively, if the "medium" is notable but the author & work isn't passing GNG, the work could be mentioned in the article on the medium. Assuming Gervais didn't have an article, his podcast could conceivably be mentioned in the article on the newspaper (site). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete it as totally useless. It's solely there to come up with lame excuses to include things that do not belong here by any reasonable criteria, either by Wikipedia standards or the real world. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://www.muturzikin.com

Notability of fonts

RfC: Notability of YouTubers

This interesting RfC concerns the question of whether Wikipedia's notability guidelines are sufficiently inclusive towards people who are extremely popular on YouTube. The nominator advances a number of ingenious and persuasive arguments. Wikipedia's core advantages over other information sources include its comprehensive range of content and the fact that articles can be very up-to-date, being editable in real time. The general public might perhaps expect YouTube personalities to be covered here, but our current notability guidelines make this impossible.

However, even though these arguments are well-made and supported by clear evidence, other editors are not persuaded. They correctly point out that to relax the guidelines would be to create biographies of living people without third party sources. This is problematic for several reasons and conflicts with a number of core policies.

For these reasons, despite the well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I can say that the rough consensus is not to change Wikipedia's notability guidelines insofar as they relate to YouTube personalities.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are our notability guidelines really fair for YouTubers who naturally get little to no coverage, regardless of whether they have a large fan base? CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain. YouTube has become one of the most popular sites on the internet. Many of their users make a career off of it. YouTubers like CaptainSparklez, TmarTn, Sky Does Minecraft, etc. These are all very popular YouTube personalities (YouTubers), but only one of the mentioned personalities has an article due to the current state of our guidelines. Currently guidelines call for significant third party media coverage to establish notability. And I think this works in most cases. However YouTubers, regardless of following and how large the fan base is, receive little to no coverage and current guidelines are not so fair.

Let's take the aforementioned Sky Does Minecraft (henceforth referred to as "SDM") as an example. SDM has over 10 million subscribers (over 3 million more than CaptainSparklez, who does have an article), over 500 million likes on Facebook (verified page, by the way), and over 720 thousand followers on Twitter. Even further, his latest video, which is his Ice Bucket Challenge video, has over 550 thousand hits, nearly 27 thousand likes and has nearly 5,000 comments. All in 17 hours. To me, all these stats would say he's quite notable per his large fanbase. And per WP:ENTERTAINER, criterion 2, he would usually get an article. But since he's a YouTuber and, again, since YouTubers don't usually get media coverage, he doesn't. And, of course, that rings true for SDM as seen here.

This is just one example, but there are dozens of others in the same boat. The point of all this is, I don't believe media coverage is a good barometric measure of a YouTuber's notability. Something needs to change to adapt Wikipedia to acknowledge the notability of these internet celebrities, who, despite their huge followings, don't get the media coverage to warrant an article under the current guidelines. What is the solution? I'm not sure at the moment. All I know is something needs to change because our current system, as stated, is not a fair judgement of notability for YouTubers. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Notability" is a defined term of art on Wikipedia; it's not the same as the dictionary definition. It's not the same thing as "popularity" or "interestingness". Hits, likes, comments, and a large fanbase aren't notability; they aren't what makes a subject appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia publishes what reliable sources have already published. That's the kind of encyclopedia we're making here. So we need to wait for those YouTubers to garner the right sort of coverage. Ntsimp (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is much more difficult for any Youtuber to gain the coverage that performers of other arts can. Reliable sources that go into detail about the channel/person are very unlikely, probably simply for the fact that YouTube, unlike IRL things, are meant to be viewed over the internet, in an environment where you could start reading a review, or just launch yourself right into a video. Not really appealing for many reliable sources. Wikipedia, yes, publishes what other reliable sources have published, and, yes, "Nobility" is very much a defined term for our uses, but this RfC could make a slight effect on editors' understanding of 'Notability'.

Notability does, after all, mean something, be it a person, object, or event, that is worthy of notice, and I personally doubt that YouTubers are going to ever make the cut with current guidelines, even if they are noteworthy enough compared to other performers. —Mysterytrey 00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources that go into detail about the channel/person are very unlikely" -- let me stop you right there. If there are no reliable sources, how can you possibly satisfy verifiability? --N Y Kevin 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

To respond to this, what would your article say? "SDM is a youtuber who in september 2014 had over 10 million subscribers. " And without WP:RS what would the next sentence be? If there isn't notable coverage in reliable sources we don't have the information to put in an article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The purpose of specific notability guidelines (entertainer, academic, etc.) is to give editors good heuristics for when a subject will meet the general notability guideline. That is to say if an academic is a leading researcher in a field they are likely to have multiple, independent reliable sources covering them even if a quick google search doesn't unearth any. When a specific notability guideline fails as a heuristic, we should stop using it or update it, because the goal is to have articles which have sufficient sourcing such that they can be neutral, verifiable and relatively comprehensive without relying on original research. We should never develop a notability guideline with the express purpose of skirting that core requirement. As Ntsimp notes above, the term "notable" on wikipedia is a term of art. I'll go further, it's a very unfortunate misnomer. Back in 2005 we picked the term because it seemed to fit without much thought that a normal human would read it as "important or significant" (which many youtubers certainly are), not as "covered by multiple, independent reliable sources". I've argued for years that we should rename the notability guidelines to "inclusion guidelines" or something that isn't such a loaded term. Regardless, we shouldn't build out a specific guideline that will lead us astray in determining which articles to keep on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable YouTube users have articles: Bethany Mota, Phil Mason, Pat Condell, etc. It's perfectly fair, and quite a few YouTube personalities have no trouble satisfying the GNG. However, arbitrary measure of popularity, such as big numbers, do not indicate notability. Without reliable sources, we really don't have anything say, which is why we have these policies in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Per both Protonk and NinjaRobotPirate above, notability only means "Do we have enough reliable, independent source text to use to help us write an article." If the source text doesn't exist it doesn't exist and no amount of pageviews on a YouTube video will make the source text exist, unless it gets written by reliable sources. Unless and until we have something to read from that we can then use to help us write Wikipedia articles, there is no point in writing the article in the first place, regardless of why you might happen to know about the subject. All that matters here (rather than the words you use to describe this condition, like "notability") is the existence of source material. No source material = no article. End of discussion. And we do have YouTube personalities who have Wikipedia articles. Those for whom we have enough source material to read through first before we wrote the articles. --Jayron32 23:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The original poster has a point. If someone is extremely popular, that makes them notable, period. If our guidelines don't allow for that, there's something wrong with our guidelines.

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose a person had several #1 songs on the Billboard main chart, and was the most popular pop act since the Beatles, but -- this is a thought experiment -- there were insufficient sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Would we have an article on this person? Of course we would, provided there was sufficient proof that this was true, and sufficient sources to write at least a couple sentences about the person. Right? We would.

OK, so where's the cutoff? The fact is that getting one #1 song on the Billboard American main chart is probably sufficient proof of popularity -- notability if you will -- for us to have an article on that person. But the Billboard chart doesn't mean what it used to. It's like album sales: they mean essentially nothing now. YouTube hits are a better measure of popularity. I'm sorry if the mainstream press is behind the curve on this, but so what?

I'll tell you this: if a person has x million YouTube hits and it can be demonstrated that that puts them at the very highest level of that metric, and assuming that the metric isn't being gamed or is otherwise misleading, then I'd be inclined that that shows notability and I'd be inclined to vote "keep" for an article on that person. And so would others. And I think that's reasonable. So since people are going to do that, and it's reasonable, we should consider adding metrics like that to our notability standards. Because our standards are supposed to conform to reality and how reasonable people are going to think here, and not vice versa. Herostratus (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your example #1 song on the Billboard American main chart doesn't really work. I would consider Billboard American chart to be an ideal third party RS establishing Notability. The world has deemed to Take Note of any chart-topping musician. The fact that there does not exist a comparable chart for Youtubers would suggest the world currently does not consider a popular Youtuber to be inherently noteworthy. Alsee (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, a subject is notable for a Wikipedia article if it meets the general notability guidelines OR any of the subject specific guidelines. Then after that, it puts the GNG on the same page, so some people just skimming through get confused. They got a large cult following, they are notable, simple as that. The SSG were created because you can be notable without meeting the GNG. Anyone claiming otherwise, is just deluding themselves because they personally dislike them. Dream Focus 05:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Occasionally I hear about youtubers on podcasts or see a story on them on TV. This is the sort of coverage that we would need to see. I don't think there could be any automatic rule based on numbers of views. Otherwise Wikipedia pages could deserve article when they get enough views. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's quite simple... if independent secondary sources discuss a YouTuber or even a specific youtube video, we can (and should) have an article about it. If not, we shouldn't. The number of hits is a poor metric, since hit counts can be manipulated by a small number of people going repeatedly to the hit... having independent sources discuss a topic can not. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Interesting question, but no. I sympathize with the intent, but I see three problems. If there's no Reliable Sources then there's just no good way to support the article. The second issue issue is that Wikipedia doesn't cover News-Of-The-Day. A Youtube clip of a cute cat might get a bazillion views this week, but that doesn't mean it has any lasting notability. Notability implies a permanent status. Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. It is the existence of Reliable Sources taking note of it that confer that permanent status. Wikipedia can't grant Notability just because we think a Youtuber has enough viewers to qualify. Third, if we did decided to do this, who is to decide how many followers is enough to qualify as Notable? Is there anyone here that would even dare to propose a number? Any Youtuber with more than X followers gets a Wikipedia page?? Alsee (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Firm oppose: I've yet to see an explanation of how an article lacking reliable sources can possibly satisfy our other inclusion criteria, particularly WP:V and WP:NOR. As such, this is moot. --N Y Kevin 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment People seem to be misunderstanding the discussion at hand. The discussion is not the merits of an article based on current policy and guidelines, thus are irrelevant. This discussion is about possible changes to current guidelines and policy if consensus decides in this discussion that the current policies and guidelines are not suitable to current media coverage of culture, in particular coverage of internet celebrities. Previous commenters are right, notability is not temporary. But I don't think popularity from YouTube qualifies as "temporary notability" as suggested. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The people who are "Opposing" are providing good discussion reasons. Consider it a compliment that people are talking your idea more seriously than you intended :) The fact that people treated it more formally than you intended just means that, had things gone the other way, things might have advanced faster than you had expected. The question of how Notability should interact with Youtubers was interesting to analyze, I like that you raised the question. Alsee (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - There's alot of youtubers who have articles - Shaytards, Charles Trippy, Pewdiepie the list goes on, I personally think the guidelines are fine & fair & don't need changing at all. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

People still seem to be misunderstanding, this isn't a vote, or even a !vote. It's not a straw poll. It's a discussion. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 15:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose WP:Notability simply states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. If we exclude any of those criteria, other than Original Research what would we base the article on? SPACKlick (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment There is a lot of people opposing a discussion, it seems. —Mysterytrey 00:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

People prefacing their comments with their stance on whether a change is needed or not, per common forms of RFC's doesn't mean they're not up for discussion and suggestion so isnt' assuming good faith. What people are opposing is allowing internet celebrities their own articles without reliable sources. SPACKlick (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Earlier I opposed, but I would now like to take into account the clarification that this was a discussion about changing Notability. I do not see this as a flaw in our current Notability standards. A lot of people see the term "Notable" and apply a common usage interpretation, thinking that it means "at least somewhat famous". Our usage of Notable is "Does it belong in an Encyclopedia". Our internet encyclopedia covers more than a paper encyclopedia normally would, mainly because we can. But I still think a chart-topping musician has a form of lasting historical notability that a Youtuber doesn't have, even if he does have more fans than the musician. As I said above, this isn't just my personal opinion. The world out there simply has not deemed to Take Note of Youtubers the same way that it Takes Note of musicians. If and when the world decides that Yuotubers have lasting significance, then existing policies will give them articles. Alsee (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Notability specifically discounts popularity, as, particularly on Youtube/etc, viewership numbers can be gamed. Better to stick to the standard of reliable sources per WP:N (which as noted above has allowed some YTers to have articles without problem). --MASEM (t) 05:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment' When people decide they want to comment on what I said, rather than just throwing around "notability" as currently defined, I'll be glad to try my best at rebutting. Until then, there's nothing I can say. Because, as I said, notability as currently defined excludes them and there's nothing I can say to change it with the current definition. This discussion was supposed to be about whether YouTubers are famous and worthy of articles in spite of current guidelines, and if so, adapt them. But commenters so far have merely thrown around the term and policies/guidelines as currently defined, which is getting this discussion so far from what I wanted. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're ignoring that many people have. To paraphrase what I said above. The current standard is simply the topic being discussed in reliable sources. If we widen the standard from that, what would the article be based on? What would we put in it? Short of a directory stub saying "x is a youtube channel which at [date] had over [number] subscribers" what else could we include? SPACKlick (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as per reasoning of SPACKlick; if the subject of an article, who happens to by a youtube content creator, has received significant coverage from reliable sources, WP:GNG, than the subject would be treated like any other potential article subject. I don't believe that a notability guideline that states that if content creator on youtube has X number of hits, that that should be a basis for determining that subject has receive significant coverage. If that were the case than certain internet memes would be article worthy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how we could write an encyclopedic article about a subject when the only source available is the information from youtube, which is a primary source of mixed reliability (Thinks like view count are probably reliable, but anything the owner can edit wont be). So lets say I want to right an article about such a person. How will I source it? How will I provide a proper encyclopedic coverage that goes beyond self published information already available at youtube? That is one of the major reasons for the notability guidelines. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I applaud the original question, as a discussion of whether or not the current Notability guidelines sufficiently address the phenomenon of YouTube. All the quotations of current policy and !votes based on those policies aren't really pertinent to the discussion, since the point of the question is whether or not we should consider expanding the concept of WP:GNG to include new criteria or considerations. That said, I'm stymied as to what the new criteria would be unless we resorted to popularity or hits on the website neither of which seem to be an unreliable metric alone. Clearly when someone has a following and millions of hits, it does seem that that is notable, but I'm not sure there's a good way to establish an arbitrary count that would constitute such notability. I also agree that waiting for journalist to write about it (which, like it or not, is the primary focus of those seeking a Reliable Source) seems that someone could be indeed notable for a long time waiting for such coverage. I'm going to give this some more thought and get back to you. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 02:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting @Vertium: that it's not just establishing they're notable. I fully agree there are notable youtubers with no RS discussion of them, the potential article also needs to be able to have some encyclopedic content, for which we also kind of need a source to have made the decision which facts are relevant or not otherwise a youtubers article will be either a directory entry listing only bare numbers like subscribers and viewcounts and video totals OR it will be a battleground of original research. SPACKlick (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Nothing to fix. All is fine the way it is.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close comment, for when this inevitably comes up again: Aside from what the closer said, the underlying rationale is faulty: 'YouTube has become one of the most popular sites on the internet. Many of their users make a career off of it.' Sushi restaruants are among of the most type of eatery in the world. Many customers of them make a career out of sushi. But this does not make even really, really good sushi chefs notable, if they are not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, at least some of them secondary sources. Most of the best people in the world at most professions, from grocery store clerks to truck drivers, are not notable. That's life. YouTube "stars" will eventually become notable, anyway, as media converge more, and as the nature of celebrity continues to shift. Give it time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

These rules of "notability" go back to the insane standards Wikipedia has with sourcing and verifiability. You can't use many primary sources, you have to use secondary sources, and only sources that are deemed trustworthy by the biases of some Wikipedians with a lot of political power.

Real encyclopedias don't do this crap. They allow the experts to speak on their given subject without interjecting on crap they don't know about. They effectively utilize primary sources, especially when secondary sources are not prevalent, and they contextualize and make exceptions for rules when things are worth having in the encyclopedia but don't meet certain high standards; an example would be general expert information that might not have any sources because it predates the printing of research.

Wikipedia clearly has never understood the primary goal of Encyclopedias, which is to summarize truth, which is why professors continue to warn against using Wikipedia, and have done so for the past two decades. Anything that hampers the summarization of truth needs to be met with changes and exceptions based on the context, and this definitely includes the "neutrality" rules. Some Wikipedians know this, which is why you have tons of extremely useful Wiki pages that violate many rules.

Notability is one of these rules, because the notability of a thing is not dependent on whether you can find news sources or review articles from "reputable" sources on the subject. That is a ridiculously biased standard, and you can see that it is biased because a large amount of unpopular blogs talking about a game verifies notability more significantly than one or two very large blogs that are seen as "reputable".

The notability standards not only have overly high standards when taken without exceptions, they are also extremely vague. The Notability article argues that it's not based on popularity, and yet it requires that popular reviews be made about the game that do not cite the original developers, because that's always considered a "press release", even though the mere citation of it meant that the author found it significant, and that do not just cite the popularity of a game via statistics. So now you've excluded a primary source that not only establishes popularity and significance among a population, but also serves as verification of that popularity, and all because it is just a statistic that's not reviewed and analyzed by a professional. But this problem is rooted in the idea that notability takes its "rules of thumb" from Wikipedia's sourcing and verifiability rules.

Which leads me to my main point, notability and verifiability and sourcing are all different things, and Wikipedia's definition of "notability" is both redundant, and harms Wikipedia in the long run. If something has primary sources, and is notable (as in, it is viewed as significant or important amongst the population or amongst historians or researchers), then it should be in Wikipedia, even if it does not meet all the crazy "notability" standards, and even if it has little secondary sources.

Very popular things are culturally significant right off the bat. Even still, popular things within a significant community are culturally significant, which means notability is relative to the community the subject comes from or is prevalent in. Verifiability and sourcing do not matter for cultural significance.

You cannot reject cultural significance just because you feel that determining cultural significance is too hard. Cultural significance is also not dependent on magazines, books, and reviews.

Even setting aside the fact that video sources are often excluded from the conversation, an illiterate or oral society has subjects that are culturally and historically significant and that should be included in Encyclopedias, particularly if they are general expert knowledge. So those who are trying to simplify the topic of sourcing as if it is all black-and-white with no exceptions are absolutely insane and don't know what they are talking about.

And all of these would be fine if Wikipedians weren't arrogant in thinking that their rules have no legitimate problems whatsoever.

Krixano (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: How can non-web content be classed as web content?

There is no objection to changing
Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
to
Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
Pinging Adam9007 (talk · contribs).
There was minimal participation in this RfC likely because the opening post asked for thoughts and did not propose a specific wording. I recommend either starting an RfC about the wording proposed late in the discussion or boldly making the change to the guideline and starting an RfC if an editor objects to the change. Cunard (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As someone who knows that the world wide web actually is, including its differences from the internet, I am at a loss as to how increasingly many products are technically classed as web content, even if they are not web content at all by definition. As if how it's distributed somehow changes what it actually is. I simply do not understand footnote #1; is it saying that if it's not available in a shop, then it's web content, regardless of what is it? I've removed several A7 tags from articles about computer programs that are mainly, if not only available via the web, but according to this guideline, I was wrong to do so (WP:A7 links to this guideline), even though they're not in themselves web content (I'm talking here of things such as Android apps). A computer program is a computer program, regardless of how it's distributed. Under that rule, with the ever-growing use of the web as it slowly but surely replaces physical shops, it won't be that long before pretty much everything is classed as web content, even if it has nothing to do with the world wide web, but merely distributed via it. The web is already the primary, if not sole distribution medium for many products. If it's not actually on the web, it shouldn't come under here, but rather, WP:NPRODUCT or WP:NSOFTWARE. It's already extremely difficult, if not impossible to get many common programs (such as web browsers) from anywhere but the web, are they classed as web content? I'm also talking about other products that are available primarily/only via the web; it's just that I'm more familiar with computer programs that other types of product. Web content should mean just that; content that is accessed and used via the web (things like websites, blogs, youtube videos/channels etc, and note I said the web, not the internet), otherwise the term "web content" as it's currently used is misleading. To sum up, if something's a product, it should come under the products guideline, regardless of how it's distributed. What are your thoughts on this? Adam9007 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree that web content definition needs revision. Under this definition, Adobe Creative Cloud, OS X El Capitan, Windows 10, and many other products would be "web content" since they're all distributed through the internet. At one point, most major software was shipped on disk, but now with increasing bandwidth the vast majority of content is sent through internet regardless of file size. Appable (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This doesn't seem like it requires an RfC at this point, but you do raise a decent point. I don't think I ever stopped to consider the implications of "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline". So all of the albums that are self-published on the web, all of the books published only on the web, the Adobe Creative Cloud, and every Netflix original series? It looks like that line is more than 10 years old, added here. Looking forward to hearing what others think, but perhaps you'd like to propose a way to clarify the scope? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think it is worth an RfC because it means there is a loophole that makes many products strictly speaking eligible for CSD A7, despite A7 explicitly excluding products of any kind. I propose that all products come under the products guideline, regardless of how they're distributed. Adam9007 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

But that relies on a clear definition of "product"? Is a paid VPN service a product? A digital-only album (free or paid)? ... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I don't know about those (though I imagine they're products), but I do know software are products. As both me and Appable: have said, so much software is distributed primarily on the web these days, which means they're classed as web content, and are therefore A7-eligible, despite A7 explicitly excluding software. Albums are also excluded from A7 (though they do come under A9, which does not explicitly include web content) Adam9007 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the premise, just the proposed fix. I just think saying "products" creates another ambiguity.

How about something like this change. Instead of "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline" we have "Any content accessed and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline"?

The main idea is ditching "distributed" (digital distribution is not what it was in 2006 and that word opens things up a bit too much now) and focusing on a specific form of interaction (via a web browser) rather than the much-too-broad "Internet". It could go on to specifically exclude certain types of content covered by other subject-specific notability criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Yes, I think the latter quotation is a more accurate description of "web content", although not everything accessed through a web browser is web content. Some software used to (do they still?) come with HTML help files for instance. And yes, the term "Internet" is indeed far too broad; in fact, the Internet and the web aren't even the same things! It certainly doesn't help that this very guideline doesn't distinguish between the two either (I even launched an RfD on WP:INTERNET!). In my mind, web content is anything that's accessed and used on the world wide web. Although many things can be downloaded from the web, they are not used on or via the web and instead run on the user's computer. How about "Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline"? Adam9007 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone wanted to create an essay about what they do and don't consider to be "web content", that could work. And after a few rounds of discussion on that page, it would probably result in a solid proposal for WP:VPP. Anyway, that's what I do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Unfortunately, I really don't think that would work, unless it's made into a guideline. People will just point out that it's only an essay, as I've seen a alot of people do with regards to WP:A7M. It's the guidelines and policies that need changing; simply writing an essay won't have any impact here. Adam9007 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, you can't use an essay to influence policy debates. But you can use it to start a discussion that will clearly identify a problem and and propose a specific solution. It looks kind of like that's what you wanted to do with this RFC, but they usually propose a specific solution, which people then vote to support or oppose. If you listed what you think counts as web content, then I could reply to that with my thoughts. And then, after a few other people have joined in the discussion, we'd have an idea of what possible problems exist and what possible solutions we should propose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the RfC, Adam9007: I was not previously aware of some web content not necessarily being online, and feel knowing this is beneficial. I'm unsure as to what final decision could be made, but I feel starting an essay, as suggested by NinjaRobotPirate, would be beneficial. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: As you can see, my biggest nitpick about this is that it technically makes a lot of things which aren't supposed to be A7 eligible (namely software and games), A7 eligible despite them being explicitly excluded from A7. As others have pointed out, the "Any content that is distributed primarily through the internet is considered web content" bit may have made sense 10 years ago, but nowadays, so much stuff is distributed like that that at this rate, pretty much everything will become web content in the not too distant future. One example of this is Operation: Inner Space. That is a video game designed for 80386 PCs running Windows 3.1, yet under the current guidelines, that would most definitely fall under web content! (and therefore be A7 eligible despite being a software product) The only way to obtain it is through the developer's website, and although they used to send a physical copy (I have one), I believe they now send it via email. It's absolutely ridiculous to call it web content purely because that's how it's distributed! Adam9007 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007 I'm not really sure as to what solution can be proposed to this: the current guideline does appear outdated. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: I'd suggest, as suggested above, changing the wording to "Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline", thereby excluding stuff that's merely distributed via the web or internet. Adam9007 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007:In that case I support that change. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: I've just remembered that there's also the footnote that states products sold primarily on the web count as web content. That needs changing too. Adam9007 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007I agree. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability on YouTube

I do not have any YouTuber in particular in mind, but I realize there are a handful of articles of articles on YouTubers. Obviously, merely posting content would not establish notability. While I realize that several factors determine notability, I was wondering how many subscribers (roughly) a notable YouTuber would have.

Thanks HarryOtter (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny you should mention this now: I've just declined an A7 on 442oons for having 1 million subscribers (although significance is lower than notability). I also just checked Angry Video Game Nerd's YouTube account, and he has around 2 and a quarter million subscribers. Of course, I don't know if that's the norm for notable YouTubers. Adam9007 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is because Wikipedia does not consider "number of subscribers" to be a measure of notability. Because right now, it isn't. If your YouTube channel is notable (by Wikipedia terms) then someone somewhere will have written an article about it in a reliable independent published third-party source. Or (according to these guidelines) your YouTube channel will have won some kind of recognized award (I have no idea what kinds of awards are possible or how recognized they are, but those are the rules). In a nutshell: you can have 10 billion subscribers, but unless having that many subscribers ALSO happens to means that you have acquired the attention of multiple published reliable independent verifiable non-trivial sources, you are not Wiki-notable. Which you almost certainly would be, if you had 10 billion subscribers! Make sense?? Having said that, You are more than welcome to propose an alteration/ addition to the subject-specific guidelines for websites that includes numbers of subscribers as a criterion for inclusion. I believe that this very talk page would be the place to do it, and that you would probably need to write up something like a Request for Comment to see how the cards might fall.A loose necktie (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC about independent sources for academic biographies

SNGs and GNG

But GNG=Notable, yes?

This guideline on notability for websites states two conditions for which it will admit the existence of notability for a website and allow an article on the subject. The first of these appears to be a re-statement of the General Notability Guidelines, and the second is the winning of certain unnamed awards. It then states that meeting "either of these two conditions" likely qualifies an article as notable. My question is this: why do we have subject-specific notability guidelines for websites (or for any subject, for that matter) that state that one of the conditions for establishing notability is meeting the General Notability Guidelines? Isn't that... Redundant? And arent' there a lot of SSNGs that pretty much say the same thing? "You can either meet the General Notability Guidelines or you can meet these other "special" guidelines..." If a subject meets the GNG, doesn't the conversation end right there? I think that the reason editors come to SSNGs is to see if their subject maybe qualifies as notable under a certain special guideline. Isn't that because they already know it likely fails to meet the GNG? Why does this need restating here? If it doesn't (and I don't think it does) then shouldn't we just axe it? Or does the whole guideline for websites start to sound kind of stupid if we don't leave it in? A loose necktie (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

GNG ≠ Notable: A topic is presumed to be suitable. It's not a guarantuee. Paradoctor (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The "presumption" of notability wasn't my point there. My point was that the SSG seems to be restating the GNG as one of its own requirements, which, if it is true, doesn't seem to warrant the reiteration. Or am I missing something? A loose necktie (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@A loose necktie: Late to the discussion, but I was thinking the same thing. BilledMammal (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

GNG ≠ Notable. I find this to be a weird argument to make, since if something passes GNG, it is notable in almost all cases, unless there is an SNG or policy that adds restrictions on top of GNG, such as NCORP or NOT. In general, GNG = Notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NWEB #1 seems identical to GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)