3336:
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
408:. 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.
716:
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.
2302:
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.
444:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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
1725:"Notability" is a defined term of art on Knowledge (XXG); 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 Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) 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.
1667:, 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.
704:
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.
2439:
222:
1889:
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
Knowledge (XXG) articles. Those for whom we have enough source material to read through first before we wrote the articles. --
2052:- 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.
2451:
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.
2981:, 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!
2648:. 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
1934:#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?
186:
1748:
environment where you could start reading a review, or just launch yourself right into a video. Not really appealing for many reliable sources. Knowledge (XXG), 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'.
1429:
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).
2401:, 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.--
2348:
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.
1940:"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.
1275:?). 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 Knowledge (XXG) means transforming Knowledge (XXG) into a free advertisement venue for fringe stuff.
2640:
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,
2635:
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 (
1836:"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.
340:. 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?
2529:' 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
3202:
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
2799:
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
2450:
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
2301:
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
2030:
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
1980:
is quite clear, a subject is notable for a
Knowledge (XXG) 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
1051:
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
719:
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
2904:
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
2708:
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
2639:
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
2634:
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
2347:
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
1835:
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
1705:
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 Knowledge (XXG) to acknowledge the notability of these internet celebrities,
1170:
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
711:
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 Knowledge
2821:
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
2445:
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
2417:
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
1428:
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
1096:
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
443:
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
3335:
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
2482:
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
1939:
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
1830:
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
1706:
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.
843:
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
707:
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
2795:
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
790:
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
715:
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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
1888:
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 Knowledge (XXG) articles, there is no point in writing the article in the first place,
3150:
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
2371:
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
1247:
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
873:
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
703:
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
635:
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
3193:
This is because Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) terms) then someone somewhere will have written an article about it in a reliable independent published
2968:
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
2777:
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
2122:
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
2905:
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.
2146:
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
2011:
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 Knowledge (XXG) pages could deserve article when they get enough views.
1958:
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
1597:
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
2830:. 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"?
1593:
This interesting RfC concerns the question of whether Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines are sufficiently inclusive towards people who are extremely popular on YouTube. The nominator advances a number of ingenious and persuasive arguments. Knowledge (XXG)'s core advantages over other
1747:
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
2060:
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 Knowledge (XXG) page??
1594:
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.
2734:
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.
3031:
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.
539:
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" ("Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox"), I preceded the phrase with "the idea that"; thus, it reads, "the idea that
2533:. 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.
1073:
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.
2685:, 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.
985:
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
601:
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
1751:
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.
1243:'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
1226:
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
1327:
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
2969:
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
3499:
This is a pattern I've noticed with a lot of the SNGs. Their pages are noisy, with the important criteria buried amid a restatement of principles (not inherent, not inherited, GNG, etc.) and buried between rarely used criteria that no longer come up at AFD.
3194:
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
967:". 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
427:
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,
2418:
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.
1150:
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
791:
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.
2658:, 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?
3388:
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?
971:. 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. —
377:
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
3437:. 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. –
1396:
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 —
1916:
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
1371:
Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example,
585:
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
990:
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
3524:
Maybe just scrap it? If it's just one criteria that I don't imagine is used very often it probably isn't worth having a guideline on, or spending the time working out how to fit an inclusive guideline into an exclusionary SNG.
3344:
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?
1111:
In theory, Knowledge (XXG) 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,
2600:
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
696:
I think Knowledge (XXG) 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.
2929:: 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
960:
2856:
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
1925:. 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.
382:
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
1289:
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.
1004:
When it comes to web comics, I am not a subject matter expert, however, I expect that there's enough experience among Knowledge (XXG) editors now to know what web sites are not mere pass-throughs (i.e.
2118:
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
595:
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.
1248:
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."
557:), 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").
1831:
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
3198:
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
1452:
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 Knowledge (XXG) standards or the real world.
1069:
The essay you mention is confusing and contradictory. To apply what I believe to the case here, if there's a consensus of Knowledge (XXG) editors that editorial judgment (or quality control) of
3495:
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Knowledge (XXG) article.
1508:
Damn, it was archived? Hmmm. I guess you are in the right place then... have you compared this to the guideline? How does it meet the criteria? Tells us what point is unclear and we can help. --
515:
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.
1981:
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.
423:
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
1339:
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;
1884:
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
1692:
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
2886:
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
2709:
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
2483:
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.
470:
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,
1911:
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.
1696:, 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
2275:
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'
874:
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.
2325:, 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). --
1761:"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
1056:, 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 —
1175:
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?
968:
3503:
Anyway, this SNG with possibly only one unique criteria seems like it might be a good SNG to merge with another page, perhaps NCORP. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? –
234:
2822:
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
712:(XXG) 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.
39:
888:
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.
2237:
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.
2147:
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.
1424:
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
744:
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
493:
74:
285:
280:
275:
268:
263:
258:
251:
246:
241:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
1864:, etc. It's perfectly fair, and quite a few YouTube personalities have no trouble satisfying the GNG. However, arbitrary measure of popularity, such as
206:
723:
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.
575:) more accurate (explained PROD further to include the need for lack of controversy), clear (removed possible ambiguity), and detailed (added link to
2579:
Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
1868:, 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.
1822:
No. The purpose of specific notability guidelines (entertainer, academic, etc.) is to give editors good heuristics for when a subject will meet the
3493:, and it seems to me that criteria #1 is just re-stating GNG. So one might conclude that the only unique thing on this whole page is criterion #2,
3228:
2056:. It is the existence of Reliable Sources taking note of it that confer that permanent status. Knowledge (XXG) can't grant Notability just because
1643:
Are our notability guidelines really fair for YouTubers who naturally get little to no coverage, regardless of whether they have a large fan base?
80:
3086:
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.
700:
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.
1052:
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
3116:
3068:
3013:
2946:
771:
It must have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.
1663:
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
1312:
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?
3177:'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.
2080:: I've yet to see an explanation of how an article lacking reliable sources can possibly satisfy our other inclusion criteria, particularly
532:
I rephrased the line defining "web concept" in the first paragraph ("any content of this guideline, as web content") to remove awkwardness.
354:
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
1294:
particular clause gives me no impression that sources would immediately follow by meeting this mark. Thus, it is appropriate to delete. --
541:
536:
776:
How many sources talking about your blog and meeting all of these requirements could you find? How long would the resulting article be?
529:
form of web-specific content" for precision of meaning and to illustrate (yet again) that the guideline does not apply in every situation.
1804:
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.
1800:
To respond to this, what would your article say? "SDM is a youtuber who in september 2014 had over 10 million subscribers. " And without
3280:
1503:
598:
I fixed footnote #2 by correcting the meaning of the sentence. The article about the content should be redirected, not the web content!
2397:; if the subject of an article, who happens to by a youtube content creator, has received significant coverage from reliable sources,
1536:
448:. I wouldn't say the article itself is the ultimate reference as to what reliable sources are available for the article. Much love,
196:
2545:
1569:
900:
823:
676:
2525:
Post-close comment, for when this inevitably comes up again: Aside from what the closer said, the underlying rationale is faulty: '
298:
201:
20:
582:
Last line, first paragraph "No inherent notability": I made the first letter of "see" lowercase for grammatical/stylistic reasons.
1621:
3273:
2749:
But that relies on a clear definition of "product"? Is a paid VPN service a product? A digital-only album (free or paid)? ... —
358:, one by SlashFood, and one by FineCooking. There's been some debate as to the reliability of these as sources though (see the
69:
1697:
752:
2594:
445:
3269:
3203:
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
60:
1638:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
954:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3139:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2628:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2521:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2460:
2101:
1778:
1471:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3490:
3265:
3246:
24:
2208:
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.
1532:
3309:
3305:
762:
source that is still accessible to the public. (So a speech is useless , but a webpage describing the speech is fine.)
2792:
I'm not disagreeing with the premise, just the proposed fix. I just think saying "products" creates another ambiguity.
2406:
1271:
or at least it can be easily interpreted that way ("medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" =
1025:
I looked into this a little deeper. It seems that a workable solution would be to incorporate a short description of
332:
Since this is far from my area of expertise I'm wondering if anyone can help with the notability of these two entries
2571:
Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.
649:
3110:
3062:
3007:
2940:
2910:
2866:
1873:
1253:
120:
2770:
I don't know about those (though I imagine they're products), but I do know software are products. As both me and
1762:
3394:
3350:
3212:
2017:
433:
2713:. Looking forward to hearing what others think, but perhaps you'd like to propose a way to clarify the scope? —
2297:
Earlier I opposed, but I would now like to take into account the clarification that this was a discussion about
309:
166:
3000:
I'm not really sure as to what solution can be proposed to this: the current guideline does appear outdated. --
1672:
Let's take the aforementioned Sky Does Minecraft (henceforth referred to as "SDM") as an example. SDM has over
3312:
on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best,
2527:
YouTube has become one of the most popular sites on the internet. Many of their users make a career off of it.
1693:
1006:
3513:
3473:
3447:
1601:
For these reasons, despite the well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I can say that the rough consensus is
2890:. It's the guidelines and policies that need changing; simply writing an essay won't have any impact here.
2232:
2180:
the list goes on, I personally think the guidelines are fine & fair & don't need changing at all. –
1977:
3530:
3423:
2970:
2402:
1415:
1317:
1223:
1211:
1180:
1121:
1102:
992:
781:
734:
3261:
2645:
1865:
1053:
1009:) but attempt to host the most popular or highest quality comics and apply the (3) criteria accordingly.
759:
50:
3340:
qualifies as notable under a certain special guideline. Isn't that because they already know it likely
3174:
3104:
3081:
3056:
3026:
3001:
2963:
2934:
2930:
2906:
2881:
2862:
2542:
2507:
2279:. What people are opposing is allowing internet celebrities their own articles without reliable sources.
2263:
1945:
1869:
1753:
1566:
1399:
1249:
1058:
973:
897:
820:
673:
3526:
3419:
3173:
for having 1 million subscribers (although significance is lower than notability). I also just checked
2823:
2641:
1199:
1026:
497:
359:
90:
65:
811:
exactly covers this, as well, pretty much word-for-word, other than the quote from the OP in the RFC.
3413:
3390:
3375:
3346:
3208:
3159:
2674:
2013:
1689:
1617:
1434:
1280:
518:
I replaced all instances of "our" with "the" or "Knowledge (XXG)'s" to remove feeling of exclusivity.
429:
1236:
653:
3317:
3291:
2816:
2802:
2765:
2751:
2729:
2715:
2488:
2377:
2284:
2248:
2194:
1809:
1117:
938:
839:
If a website has a lot of famous/notable people reviewed there, shouldn't it be considered notable?
551:
388:
345:
1343:
trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as
1228:
657:
572:
509:
424:
337:
3504:
3464:
3438:
3229:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability
3182:
3091:
3037:
2986:
2895:
2835:
2783:
2740:
2703:
2663:
2606:
2588:
2424:
2036:
1897:
1457:
879:
796:
619:
592:
I improved the flow of the list of "reliable published works" by using a more parallel structure.
315:
171:
1232:
661:
965:
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators
867:
2690:
2096:
1841:
1773:
1545:
1514:
1411:
1313:
1176:
1098:
777:
730:
46:
3460:
2602:
2530:
1268:
1240:
568:
192:
This guideline covers several related areas. Please see discussions on website sub-types at:
2610:
2536:
2503:
1982:
1941:
1730:
1560:
891:
845:
814:
667:
313:
311:
221:
170:
168:
3204:
2887:
2858:
2654:
via the web (things like websites, blogs, youtube videos/channels etc, and note I said the
2605:
making the change to the guideline and starting an RfC if an editor objects to the change.
2447:
2398:
2276:
2085:
1922:
1918:
1823:
1673:
1267:
it. It's pretty clear from the discussion above that this criterion 3 is incompatible with
1244:
1155:? How do you decide what to say after the first half sentence? I know how to get through
1033:. Alas, the article is deleted but I will make my suggestion on that article's talk page.
919:
720:
worried that these may not meet the notability criteria as they seem to be at the moment.
645:
561:
3370:
3155:
2678:
2438:
2333:
2307:
2152:
2066:
1964:
1677:
1664:
1609:
1487:
1430:
1302:
1276:
1219:
1129:
1079:
1038:
1014:
996:
475:
453:
413:
367:
2636:
2240:
1801:
1214:, don't support the need for this criterion. Consensus above and at AFD is publishing on
576:
379:
1605:
Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines insofar as they relate to YouTube personalities.
3534:
3518:
3478:
3452:
3427:
3398:
3379:
3354:
3321:
3313:
3294:
3288:
3216:
3186:
3163:
3122:
3095:
3074:
3041:
3019:
2990:
2952:
2914:
2899:
2870:
2839:
2827:
2809:
2787:
2758:
2744:
2722:
2694:
2667:
2554:
2511:
2492:
2484:
2467:
2431:
2410:
2394:
2381:
2373:
2362:
2355:
2337:
2311:
2288:
2280:
2266:
2252:
2244:
2222:
2215:
2201:
2181:
2173:
2156:
2137:
2130:
2108:
2070:
2040:
2021:
2004:
1968:
1949:
1904:
1877:
1845:
1813:
1805:
1785:
1756:
1734:
1720:
1713:
1657:
1650:
1625:
1578:
1551:
1520:
1491:
1461:
1438:
1419:
1405:
1321:
1306:
1284:
1257:
1184:
1133:
1106:
1083:
1064:
1042:
1018:
979:
942:
934:
909:
883:
832:
800:
785:
738:
685:
629:
479:
457:
437:
417:
392:
384:
371:
349:
341:
2081:
1535:
should redirect here, and should we have a section or a sentence about them? Or would
3178:
3100:
3087:
3050:
3033:
2997:
2982:
2926:
2891:
2831:
2779:
2736:
2659:
2584:
2419:
2032:
1890:
1453:
1425:
1373:
875:
792:
614:
333:
2772:
2686:
2477:
2452:
2091:
1853:
1837:
1768:
1541:
1510:
1382:
1207:
1113:
1239:
have a "respected and independent publisher" criterion. The closest I can find is
1167:
except the comic's own website or other sources very closely related to the comic?
589:
I reworded the last paragraph (or line) in "No inherited notability" more concise.
3489:
This SNG seems a bit verbose. The meat and potatoes of this SNG/page seems to be
768:
It must be published by a reputable publishing house (rather than by the author).
467:
2978:
1861:
1832:
1726:
1272:
3227:
An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at
2682:
2326:
2303:
2148:
2062:
2053:
1960:
1857:
1685:
1497:
1483:
1377:
1352:
1295:
1125:
1075:
1034:
1010:
471:
449:
409:
363:
355:
2372:
youtube channel which at had over subscribers" what else could we include?
2350:
2210:
2177:
2169:
2125:
1826:. That is to say if an academic is a leading researcher in a field they are
1708:
1645:
1160:
612:
If anyone has any objections or comments, feel free to discuss them below.
2123:
popularity from YouTube qualifies as "temporary notability" as suggested.
2673:
Agree that web content definition needs revision. Under this definition,
1348:
1215:
1203:
1070:
1030:
2826:!). In my mind, web content is anything that's accessed and used on the
961:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/No Room for Magic (2nd nomination)
3170:
1410:
Comment withdrawn. I shouldn't have been sarcastic in the first place.
1344:
605:
I clarified, slightly, the meaning of various sentences in footnote #5.
1681:
1676:(over 3 million more than CaptainSparklez, who does have an article),
1124:
have more weight than coverage of Carrie Lukas in published sources.
2800:
of content covered by other subject-specific notability criteria. —
2974:
765:
The source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
3169:
Funny you should mention this now: I've just declined an A7 on
1218:
is not an indicator of notability. For Carrie Lukas, not every
405:
401:
397:
316:
215:
180:
172:
15:
3260:
of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple
2262:
There is a lot of people opposing a discussion, it seems. —
708:
bloggers as rivals, and many are scornful about amateurs).
1476:
755:. (So you can't use any source by you, including the blog.)
3418:
Late to the discussion, but I was thinking the same thing.
2446:
whether or not we should consider expanding the concept of
2031:
hit... having independent sources discuss a topic can not.
1959:
consider a popular Youtuber to be inherently noteworthy.
1163:", but what comes after those words, given that you have
1116:
has an article. I conjecture that her connection to the
567:
I made the final line of the final lead paragraph (about
2710:
2560:
RfC: How can non-web content be classed as web content?
1502:
for notability of specific items I'd suggest asking at
504:. Below is a list of changes made within the one edit.
501:
105:
98:
3245:
of the following conditions, as substantiated through
3223:
RfC about independent sources for academic biographies
1557:
The latter. Fonts are not websites, but are software.
644:(in the latter two cases, it would be interpreted as
1930:
OK, so where's the cutoff? The fact is that getting
547:
In the final lead paragraph (in the part describing
1531:Would it be covered by this guideline? I wonder if
2321:Notability specifically discounts popularity, as,
560:I made the sentence in final lead paragraph about
3331:This guideline on notability for websites states
808:
525:form of web-specific content" was replaced with "
2239:If we exclude any of those criteria, other than
2168:- There's alot of youtubers who have articles -
521:I clarified the first sentence of the article. "
3287:Editors are welcome to join the discussion. --
3281:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)#Criteria
2565:
1337:
656:, of course). But whether to use "our" more in
542:Knowledge (XXG) articles are not advertisements
537:Knowledge (XXG) articles are not advertisements
3233:
301:a record of old proposals regarding webcomics
207:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Early Web History
8:
3276:of the subject and each other, are notable.
2502:Nothing to fix. All is fine the way it is.--
1956:#1 song on the Billboard American main chart
963:has got me thinking about criterion three, "
1386:. Such distributions should be nontrivial.
564:slightly more concise and straightforward.
535:In the second lead paragraph, the phrase "
3283:be changed to the proposed wording above?
1598:conflicts with a number of core policies.
838:
692:With blog notability, aim for inclusivity
466:Sorry for the double post. I just found
1222:contributor is notable, let alone every
1364:
579:so editors can find further reference).
3494:
3434:
3361:
3055:In that case I support that change. --
2526:
2236:
2054:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary
1682:over 720 thousand followers on Twitter
1504:Knowledge (XXG):Notability/Noticeboard
1029:into the article describing its host,
496:, I was asked to review the page at a
1852:Notable YouTube users have articles:
1542:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1537:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (software)
1511:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
608:Footnote #6 may in fact be redundant.
197:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Webcomics
7:
2973:. That is a video game designed for
2622:The following discussion is closed.
1634:The following discussion is closed.
1196:No, this criterion is not necessary.
950:The following discussion is closed.
933:the idea that C3 should be deleted.
299:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web)/Old
202:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Blogging
2243:what would we base the article on?
23:for discussing improvements to the
3231:to decide the following question:
2567:There is no objection to changing
1678:over 500 million likes on Facebook
1533:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fonts)
14:
3279:Shall the wording in the section
3135:The discussion above is closed.
1680:(verified page, by the way), and
969:previous AfD discussion from 2006
922:criterion three really necessary?
660:pages is probably a matter for a
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
3254:: Academics/professors meeting
3238:: Academics/professors meeting
3207:to see how the cards might fall.
2517:The discussion above is closed.
2437:
1467:The discussion above is closed.
220:
184:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
3310:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability
2933:, would be beneficial. Thanks,
512:consistent throughout the text.
500:perspective, which I did so in
494:my recent request for adminship
2512:00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
2493:08:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
2468:02:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
2432:14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
1626:23:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
1539:be a better place for this? --
786:15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
739:15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
328:Shorty Awards and Foodimentary
1:
3428:22:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
3187:00:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
3164:22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
3151:notable YouTuber would have.
2925:Thanks for starting the RfC,
2861:. Anyway, that's what I do.
2534:
2411:22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
2382:08:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
2363:19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
2338:05:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
2312:01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
2289:01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
2267:00:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
2253:13:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2223:15:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
2202:00:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
2157:01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
2088:. As such, this is moot. --
1814:13:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
1558:
1462:18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
1171:article? How do you write a
943:11:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
889:
812:
809:#RfC: Notability of YouTubers
665:
37:Put new text under old text.
3463:#1 seems identical to GNG. –
3322:21:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
1824:general notability guideline
1585:RfC: Notability of YouTubers
1439:19:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
1420:06:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
1406:06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
1322:04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
1307:03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
1285:16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
1258:18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
1185:21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
1134:13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
1107:01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
1084:18:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
1065:14:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
1043:13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
1019:13:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
980:00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
884:23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
868:04:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
801:23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
751:It must be a third-party or
480:15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
458:15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
438:15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
418:17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
393:17:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
372:17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
350:16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
2613:) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
2323:particularly on Youtube/etc
2138:20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
2109:19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
2071:05:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
2041:17:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
2022:12:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
2005:05:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
1969:05:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
1950:02:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
1905:23:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
1878:01:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
1846:00:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
1786:17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
1757:00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
1735:18:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1721:16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1694:WP:ENTERTAINER, criterion 2
1658:16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
1552:04:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
1521:04:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3551:
3123:15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
3096:14:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
3075:14:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
3042:14:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
3020:14:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
2991:14:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
2953:12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
2915:23:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
2900:22:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
2871:05:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
544:is an official policy...".
88:
3535:09:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
3519:09:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
3479:09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
3453:09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
3399:11:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
3380:08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
3368:. It's not a guarantuee.
3355:07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
3217:07:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
2840:00:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
2810:22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2788:22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2759:22:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2745:21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2723:21:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2695:21:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2668:19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2555:17:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
1579:17:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
1492:21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
1482:Does it has notability?--
1477:http://www.muturzikin.com
910:17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
833:17:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
760:Knowledge (XXG):Published
686:17:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
630:11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
3485:Web SNG is a bit verbose
3137:Please do not modify it.
2625:Please do not modify it.
2519:Please do not modify it.
1636:Please do not modify it.
1469:Please do not modify it.
1355:, personal blogs, etc.).
1198:The two examples given,
952:Please do not modify it.
3295:23:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
807:My post-RfC comment at
748:of these requirements:
3285:
2971:Operation: Inner Space
2617:
2581:
2573:
1674:10 million subscribers
1357:
1224:National Review Online
1212:National Review Online
1122:National Review Online
993:National Review Online
70:avoid personal attacks
3327:But GNG=Notable, yes?
3175:Angry Video Game Nerd
3146:Notability on YouTube
2577:
2569:
753:WP:Independent source
726:Ok, off my soapbox!
2675:Adobe Creative Cloud
2393:as per reasoning of
1690:Ice Bucket Challenge
640:best practices as a
406:Fine Cooking Article
3205:Request for Comment
3118:I dropped the bass?
3070:I dropped the bass?
3015:I dropped the bass?
2948:I dropped the bass?
2277:assuming good faith
1608:I hope this helps.—
1527:Notability of fonts
1210:being published by
1202:being published by
1118:Goldwater Institute
3272:sources which are
1637:
953:
508:I made the use of
398:Epicurious Article
81:dispute resolution
42:
3517:
3477:
3451:
2707:
2531:secondary sources
2466:
2429:
2403:RightCowLeftCoast
2241:Original Research
1635:
1624:
1200:No Room for Magic
1153:write the article
1027:No Room for Magic
988:editorial control
951:
650:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
402:SlashFood article
322:
321:
291:
290:
214:
213:
179:
178:
61:Assume good faith
38:
3542:
3511:
3509:
3491:the two criteria
3471:
3469:
3445:
3443:
3417:
3373:
3252:Proposed wording
3247:reliable sources
3106:Rubbish computer
3085:
3082:Rubbish computer
3058:Rubbish computer
3054:
3030:
3027:Rubbish computer
3003:Rubbish computer
2967:
2964:Rubbish computer
2936:Rubbish computer
2931:NinjaRobotPirate
2907:NinjaRobotPirate
2885:
2882:NinjaRobotPirate
2863:NinjaRobotPirate
2820:
2807:
2805:
2776:
2769:
2756:
2754:
2733:
2720:
2718:
2701:
2627:
2553:
2481:
2463:
2458:
2455:
2441:
2425:
2422:
2361:
2358:
2353:
2330:
2221:
2218:
2213:
2199:
2191:
2186:
2136:
2133:
2128:
2104:
2099:
2094:
2001:
1998:
1995:
1992:
1989:
1986:
1900:
1893:
1886:it doesn't exist
1870:NinjaRobotPirate
1781:
1776:
1771:
1719:
1716:
1711:
1686:his latest video
1684:. Even further,
1656:
1653:
1648:
1616:
1614:
1577:
1548:
1517:
1402:
1401:Mr. Stradivarius
1387:
1369:
1299:
1250:Rangoondispenser
1061:
1060:Mr. Stradivarius
976:
975:Mr. Stradivarius
959:A recent AfD at
908:
864:
861:
858:
855:
852:
849:
831:
684:
628:
626:
617:
556:
550:
317:
238:
237:
224:
216:
188:
187:
181:
173:
108:
101:
25:Notability (web)
16:
3550:
3549:
3545:
3544:
3543:
3541:
3540:
3539:
3505:
3487:
3465:
3439:
3414:A loose necktie
3411:
3391:A loose necktie
3369:
3360:GNG ≠ Notable:
3347:A loose necktie
3329:
3302:
3236:Current wording
3225:
3209:A loose necktie
3148:
3143:
3079:
3048:
3024:
2961:
2879:
2814:
2803:
2801:
2771:
2763:
2752:
2750:
2727:
2716:
2714:
2679:OS X El Capitan
2623:
2618:
2562:
2551:
2523:
2522:
2475:
2465:
2461:
2453:
2428:
2420:
2356:
2351:
2349:
2328:
2230:Strongly Oppose
2216:
2211:
2209:
2195:
2187:
2182:
2131:
2126:
2124:
2102:
2097:
2092:
2014:Graeme Bartlett
1999:
1996:
1993:
1990:
1987:
1984:
1898:
1891:
1779:
1774:
1769:
1714:
1709:
1707:
1688:, which is his
1665:CaptainSparklez
1651:
1646:
1644:
1640:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1610:
1587:
1575:
1550:
1546:
1529:
1519:
1515:
1480:
1473:
1472:
1400:
1391:
1390:
1380:distributed by
1370:
1366:
1297:
1220:National Review
1097:say about it?
1059:
997:Huffington Post
974:
956:
947:
946:
945:
924:
906:
862:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
841:
829:
694:
682:
620:
615:
613:
554:
548:
490:
430:Starblueheather
330:
318:
312:
229:
185:
175:
174:
169:
114:
113:
112:
111:
104:
97:
93:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
3548:
3546:
3538:
3537:
3486:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3457:
3456:
3455:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3404:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3383:
3382:
3366:to be suitable
3328:
3325:
3301:
3298:
3250:
3249:, are notable.
3224:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3190:
3189:
3147:
3144:
3142:
3141:
3131:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3046:
3045:
3044:
2995:
2994:
2993:
2956:
2955:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2874:
2873:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2842:
2828:world wide web
2817:Rhododendrites
2804:Rhododendrites
2797:
2793:
2766:Rhododendrites
2753:Rhododendrites
2730:Rhododendrites
2717:Rhododendrites
2698:
2697:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2564:
2563:
2561:
2558:
2549:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2496:
2495:
2459:
2435:
2434:
2426:
2414:
2413:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2366:
2365:
2341:
2340:
2315:
2314:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2270:
2269:
2256:
2255:
2235:simply states
2226:
2225:
2205:
2204:
2174:Charles Trippy
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2141:
2140:
2112:
2111:
2074:
2073:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2025:
2024:
2008:
2007:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1936:
1935:
1927:
1926:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1907:
1881:
1880:
1849:
1848:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1749:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1702:
1701:
1669:
1668:
1641:
1632:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1586:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1573:
1540:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1509:
1479:
1474:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1422:
1389:
1388:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1309:
1287:
1261:
1260:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1168:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1046:
1045:
1022:
1021:
1007:WP:SELFPUBLISH
1001:
1000:
957:
948:
928:
927:
926:
925:
923:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
904:
840:
837:
836:
835:
827:
804:
803:
788:
774:
773:
772:
769:
766:
763:
756:
693:
690:
689:
688:
680:
648:nonsense by a
643:
639:
610:
609:
606:
603:
599:
596:
593:
590:
587:
583:
580:
565:
558:
545:
533:
530:
519:
516:
513:
489:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
461:
460:
421:
420:
395:
329:
326:
324:
320:
319:
314:
310:
308:
305:
304:
303:
302:
293:
292:
289:
288:
283:
278:
272:
271:
266:
261:
255:
254:
249:
244:
231:
230:
225:
219:
212:
211:
210:
209:
204:
199:
189:
177:
176:
167:
165:
164:
161:
160:
116:
115:
110:
109:
102:
94:
89:
87:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3547:
3536:
3532:
3528:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3515:
3510:
3508:
3507:Novem Linguae
3501:
3497:
3496:
3492:
3484:
3480:
3475:
3470:
3468:
3467:Novem Linguae
3462:
3459:I agree that
3458:
3454:
3449:
3444:
3442:
3441:Novem Linguae
3436:
3435:GNG ≠ Notable
3433:
3429:
3425:
3421:
3415:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3400:
3396:
3392:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3381:
3377:
3372:
3367:
3365:
3359:
3358:
3357:
3356:
3352:
3348:
3343:
3339:
3334:
3326:
3324:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3307:
3299:
3297:
3296:
3293:
3290:
3284:
3282:
3277:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3263:
3259:
3258:
3253:
3248:
3244:
3243:
3237:
3232:
3230:
3222:
3218:
3214:
3210:
3206:
3201:
3197:
3192:
3191:
3188:
3184:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3168:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3161:
3157:
3152:
3145:
3140:
3138:
3133:
3132:
3124:
3120:
3119:
3114:
3113:
3108:
3107:
3102:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3093:
3089:
3083:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3072:
3071:
3066:
3065:
3060:
3059:
3052:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3028:
3023:
3022:
3021:
3017:
3016:
3011:
3010:
3005:
3004:
2999:
2996:
2992:
2988:
2984:
2980:
2976:
2972:
2965:
2960:
2959:
2958:
2957:
2954:
2950:
2949:
2944:
2943:
2938:
2937:
2932:
2928:
2924:
2923:
2916:
2912:
2908:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2889:
2883:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2872:
2868:
2864:
2860:
2855:
2854:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2818:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2806:
2798:
2794:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2774:
2767:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2755:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2731:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2719:
2712:
2705:
2704:edit conflict
2700:
2699:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2652:
2647:
2643:
2638:
2629:
2626:
2620:
2619:
2616:
2614:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2598:
2596:
2593:
2590:
2586:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2559:
2557:
2556:
2547:
2544:
2541:
2539:
2532:
2528:
2520:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2498:
2497:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2479:
2474:Worth noting
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2464:
2456:
2449:
2444:
2440:
2433:
2430:
2423:
2416:
2415:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2389:
2388:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2364:
2359:
2354:
2346:
2343:
2342:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2324:
2320:
2317:
2316:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2300:
2296:
2295:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2265:
2261:
2258:
2257:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2233:WP:Notability
2231:
2228:
2227:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2207:
2206:
2203:
2200:
2198:
2192:
2190:
2185:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2164:
2163:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2139:
2134:
2129:
2121:
2117:
2114:
2113:
2110:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2100:
2095:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2076:
2075:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2048:
2047:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2010:
2009:
2006:
2003:
2002:
1979:
1978:WP:NOTABILITY
1976:
1975:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1957:
1954:Your example
1953:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1915:
1914:
1910:
1909:
1906:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1894:
1887:
1883:
1882:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1764:
1763:verifiability
1760:
1759:
1758:
1755:
1750:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1717:
1712:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1654:
1649:
1639:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1613:
1606:
1604:
1603:not to change
1599:
1595:
1584:
1580:
1571:
1568:
1565:
1563:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1549:
1543:
1538:
1534:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1512:
1507:
1505:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1478:
1475:
1470:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1427:
1426:Ricky Gervais
1423:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1385:
1384:
1379:
1375:
1374:Ricky Gervais
1368:
1365:
1356:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1293:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
984:
983:
982:
981:
978:
977:
970:
966:
962:
955:
944:
940:
936:
932:
921:
917:
911:
902:
899:
896:
894:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
872:
871:
870:
869:
866:
865:
834:
825:
822:
819:
817:
810:
806:
805:
802:
798:
794:
789:
787:
783:
779:
775:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:It must be a
757:
754:
750:
749:
747:
743:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
727:
724:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
691:
687:
678:
675:
672:
670:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
641:
637:
634:
633:
632:
631:
627:
625:
624:
618:
607:
604:
600:
597:
594:
591:
588:
584:
581:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
559:
553:
546:
543:
538:
534:
531:
528:
524:
520:
517:
514:
511:
510:serial commas
507:
506:
505:
503:
499:
495:
487:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
426:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
394:
390:
386:
381:
376:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
334:Shorty Awards
327:
325:
307:
306:
300:
297:
296:
295:
294:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
273:
270:
267:
265:
262:
260:
257:
256:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
239:
236:
233:
232:
228:
223:
218:
217:
208:
205:
203:
200:
198:
195:
194:
193:
190:
183:
182:
163:
162:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
122:
118:
117:
107:
103:
100:
96:
95:
92:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
3527:BilledMammal
3506:
3502:
3498:
3488:
3466:
3440:
3420:BilledMammal
3363:
3341:
3337:
3332:
3330:
3303:
3300:SNGs and GNG
3286:
3278:
3256:
3255:
3251:
3241:
3239:
3235:
3234:
3226:
3199:
3195:
3153:
3149:
3136:
3134:
3117:
3111:
3105:
3069:
3063:
3057:
3014:
3008:
3002:
2977:PCs running
2947:
2941:
2935:
2655:
2650:
2649:
2646:WP:NSOFTWARE
2633:
2624:
2621:
2615:
2599:
2591:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2537:
2524:
2518:
2499:
2457:
2442:
2436:
2390:
2344:
2322:
2318:
2298:
2259:
2229:
2196:
2188:
2183:
2165:
2119:
2115:
2090:
2089:
2077:
2057:
2049:
1983:
1955:
1931:
1896:
1895:
1885:
1854:Bethany Mota
1827:
1767:
1766:
1642:
1633:
1611:
1607:
1602:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1561:
1530:
1501:
1481:
1468:
1449:
1412:Stuartyeates
1398:
1383:The Guardian
1381:
1367:
1340:
1338:
1314:Stuartyeates
1311:
1291:
1264:
1208:Carrie Lukas
1195:
1177:WhatamIdoing
1172:
1165:zero sources
1164:
1156:
1152:
1114:Carrie Lukas
1099:WhatamIdoing
1057:
1054:WP:INHERITED
987:
972:
964:
958:
949:
930:
892:
846:
842:
815:
778:WhatamIdoing
745:
731:ANZLitLovers
728:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
695:
668:
622:
621:
611:
526:
522:
491:
425:Foodimentary
422:
353:
338:Foodimentary
331:
323:
226:
191:
119:
19:This is the
3362:A topic is
3304:There is a
3274:independent
3257:one or more
3103:I agree. --
2979:Windows 3.1
2824:WP:INTERNET
2796:guideline"?
2642:WP:NPRODUCT
2538:SMcCandlish
2504:Mark Miller
2264:Mysterytrey
2078:Firm oppose
1942:Herostratus
1866:big numbers
1862:Pat Condell
1754:Mysterytrey
1562:SMcCandlish
1273:IP protocol
893:SMcCandlish
816:SMcCandlish
669:SMcCandlish
498:copyediting
492:As part of
488:Copyediting
3371:Paradoctor
3306:discussion
3156:HarryOtter
2683:Windows 10
1858:Phil Mason
1612:S Marshall
1547:reply here
1516:reply here
1498:User:Kaiyr
1431:ASCIIn2Bme
1353:Newgrounds
1341:except for
1277:ASCIIn2Bme
1237:WP:NOTFILM
929:Consensus
654:WP:FACTION
586:analogous.
552:notability
356:Epicurious
3314:Barkeep49
3289:Netoholic
3270:secondary
3262:published
2778:content)
2485:SPACKlick
2395:SPACKlick
2374:SPACKlick
2281:SPACKlick
2245:SPACKlick
2178:Pewdiepie
2170:Shaytards
1806:SPACKlick
1229:WP:AUTHOR
1161:web comic
935:Ironholds
844:notable.
658:WP:POLICY
652:-pushing
642:community
573:WP:SPEEDY
502:this edit
385:Griswaldo
342:Griswaldo
286:Archive 9
281:Archive 8
276:Archive 7
269:Archive 6
264:Archive 5
259:Archive 4
252:Archive 3
247:Archive 2
242:Archive 1
91:Shortcuts
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
3364:presumed
3266:reliable
3179:Adam9007
3101:Adam9007
3088:Adam9007
3051:Adam9007
3034:Adam9007
2998:Adam9007
2983:Adam9007
2927:Adam9007
2892:Adam9007
2832:Adam9007
2780:Adam9007
2737:Adam9007
2660:Adam9007
2651:and used
2595:contribs
2585:Adam9007
2583:Pinging
2462:and done
2443:Comment:
2345:Comment'
2299:changing
2033:Blueboar
1454:DreamGuy
1349:Facebook
1233:WP:NBOOK
1216:Keenspot
1204:Keenspot
1071:Keenspot
1031:Keenspot
931:supports
918:RfC: Is
876:DreamGuy
793:DreamGuy
662:WP:VPPOL
616:Guoguo12
227:Archives
121:Archives
51:get help
3461:WP:NWEB
3196:billion
3171:442oons
3154:Thanks
2773:Appable
2687:Appable
2478:Vertium
2454:Vertium
2260:Comment
2120:changes
2116:Comment
1838:Protonk
1378:podcast
1345:YouTube
1269:WP:NPOV
1241:WP:BAND
1173:neutral
999:, etc.)
602:anyway.
569:WP:PROD
383:itself.
106:WT:NWEB
2888:WP:A7M
2859:WP:VPP
2607:Cunard
2603:boldly
2500:Oppose
2448:WP:GNG
2399:WP:GNG
2391:Oppose
2357:Head90
2352:CRRays
2319:Oppose
2217:Head90
2212:CRRays
2197:(talk)
2166:Oppose
2132:Head90
2127:CRRays
2086:WP:NOR
2050:Oppose
1923:WP:BIO
1919:WP:GNG
1892:Jayron
1833:Ntsimp
1828:likely
1727:Ntsimp
1715:Head90
1710:CRRays
1652:Head90
1647:CRRays
1450:Delete
1376:had a
1265:Delete
1245:WP:WEB
920:WP:WEB
646:WP:OWN
623:(Talk)
362:page).
99:WT:WEB
3342:fails
3338:maybe
3112:HALP!
3064:HALP!
3009:HALP!
2975:80386
2942:HALP!
2637:WP:A7
2421:Monty
2304:Alsee
2184:Davey
2149:Alsee
2103:Kevin
2063:Alsee
2000:Focus
1961:Alsee
1802:WP:RS
1780:Kevin
1765:? --
1484:Kaiyr
1328:here:
1159:is a
1126:patsw
1076:patsw
1035:patsw
1011:patsw
991:(3).(
863:Focus
664:RfC.
577:WP:A7
472:Eikou
450:Eikou
410:Eikou
380:WP:RS
364:Eikou
235:Index
79:Seek
27:page.
3531:talk
3514:talk
3474:talk
3448:talk
3424:talk
3395:talk
3376:talk
3351:talk
3318:talk
3240:any
3213:talk
3183:talk
3160:talk
3092:talk
3038:talk
2987:talk
2911:talk
2896:talk
2867:talk
2836:talk
2784:talk
2741:talk
2711:here
2691:talk
2664:talk
2611:talk
2589:talk
2508:talk
2489:talk
2407:talk
2378:talk
2329:ASEM
2308:talk
2285:talk
2249:talk
2189:2010
2153:talk
2084:and
2082:WP:V
2067:talk
2037:talk
2018:talk
1965:talk
1946:talk
1921:and
1874:talk
1842:talk
1810:talk
1731:talk
1698:here
1488:talk
1458:talk
1435:talk
1416:talk
1318:talk
1298:ASEM
1292:This
1281:talk
1254:talk
1235:nor
1206:and
1181:talk
1157:This
1130:talk
1120:and
1103:talk
1080:talk
1039:talk
1015:talk
939:talk
880:talk
797:talk
782:talk
735:talk
571:and
476:talk
468:this
454:talk
446:this
434:talk
414:talk
389:talk
368:talk
360:talk
346:talk
336:and
68:and
3333:two
3308:at
3242:one
3200:not
2808:\\
2757:\\
2721:\\
2656:web
2644:or
2575:to
2552:ⱷ≼
2548:≽ⱷ҅
2427:845
1932:one
1576:ⱷ≼
1572:≽ⱷ҅
1231:,
907:ⱷ≼
903:≽ⱷ҅
830:ⱷ≼
826:≽ⱷ҅
746:all
683:ⱷ≼
679:≽ⱷ҅
638:our
562:AfD
523:Any
3533:)
3426:)
3397:)
3378:)
3353:)
3320:)
3268:,
3264:,
3215:)
3185:)
3162:)
3121:)
3115::
3094:)
3073:)
3067::
3040:)
3018:)
3012::
2989:)
2951:)
2945::
2913:)
2898:)
2869:)
2838:)
2786:)
2743:)
2693:)
2681:,
2677:,
2666:)
2597:).
2535:—
2510:)
2491:)
2409:)
2380:)
2360:|
2336:)
2310:)
2287:)
2251:)
2220:|
2193:•
2176:,
2172:,
2155:)
2135:|
2069:)
2058:we
2039:)
2020:)
1967:)
1948:)
1899:32
1876:)
1860:,
1856:,
1844:)
1812:)
1752:—
1733:)
1718:|
1655:|
1559:—
1500::
1490:)
1460:)
1437:)
1418:)
1351:,
1347:,
1320:)
1305:)
1283:)
1256:)
1183:)
1132:)
1105:)
1082:)
1041:)
1017:)
941:)
890:—
882:)
813:—
799:)
784:)
737:)
729:--
666:—
555:}}
549:{{
478:)
456:)
436:)
416:)
404:,
400:,
391:)
370:)
348:)
156:,
152:,
148:,
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
128:,
49:;
3529:(
3516:)
3512:(
3476:)
3472:(
3450:)
3446:(
3422:(
3416::
3412:@
3393:(
3374:(
3349:(
3316:(
3292:@
3211:(
3181:(
3158:(
3109:(
3090:(
3084::
3080:@
3061:(
3053::
3049:@
3036:(
3029::
3025:@
3006:(
2985:(
2966::
2962:@
2939:(
2909:(
2894:(
2884::
2880:@
2865:(
2834:(
2819::
2815:@
2782:(
2775::
2768::
2764:@
2739:(
2732::
2728:@
2706:)
2702:(
2689:(
2662:(
2609:(
2592:·
2587:(
2550:ᴥ
2546:¢
2543:☏
2540:☺
2506:(
2487:(
2480::
2476:@
2405:(
2376:(
2334:t
2332:(
2327:M
2306:(
2283:(
2247:(
2151:(
2098:Y
2093:N
2065:(
2035:(
2016:(
1997:m
1994:a
1991:e
1988:r
1985:D
1963:(
1944:(
1872:(
1840:(
1808:(
1775:Y
1770:N
1729:(
1700:.
1622:C
1620:/
1618:T
1574:ᴥ
1570:¢
1567:☏
1564:☺
1544:|
1513:|
1506:.
1486:(
1456:(
1433:(
1414:(
1316:(
1303:t
1301:(
1296:M
1279:(
1252:(
1179:(
1128:(
1101:(
1078:(
1037:(
1013:(
995:,
937:(
905:ᴥ
901:¢
898:☏
895:☺
878:(
860:m
857:a
854:e
851:r
848:D
828:ᴥ
824:¢
821:☏
818:☺
795:(
780:(
733:(
681:ᴥ
677:¢
674:☏
671:☺
527:a
474:(
452:(
432:(
412:(
387:(
366:(
344:(
158:9
154:8
150:7
146:6
142:5
138:4
134:3
130:2
126:1
123::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.