3 ms·

The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are there to prevent people from w

The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are there to prevent people from writing about things that can't be verified by reliable sources, and it's a mechanism to help ensure that articles are accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability While not every topic belongs on Wikipedia, there are a number of other places where your article would be appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets

ndnxhs 8y ago
It is a very notable file format used by many devices and lots of software can read it. The only reason its hard to reference is because the company that develops it basically just publishes a C file with how to use it and everyone uses that to write their own implementations.
- commoner 8y ago
  Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable. The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements: 1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable paragraphs) of the topic 2. The source is reliable 3. The source is a secondary source that is editorially and financially independent of the subject (and of the other source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_n... A manual for the file format would not meet requirement #3, since it's a primary source that was published by the company who developed it. This rule is in place to prevent companies from publishing information about their own products, and then promoting them on Wikipedia in a biased way.
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    So if the official documentation isn't enough and info on random websites isn't enough than what possible source can be used? Do we have to find a group of academics to look at the file and write a PDF saying "yep the official docs are indeed correct"?
    - commoner 8y ago
      You can absolutely cite the official documentation, and it's considered a reliable source for your article. However, it isn't considered an independent source, since it was written by a company with a vested interest in the topic. To prove that the file type is notable, you'll need at least different 2 sources that meet all 3 requirements: they must provide significant coverage of the topic, be reliable, and be independent of the topic. You don't have to use these sources to write all of the content in your article, but they do have to be cited as references to pass the notability test. The three most common kinds of reliable sources are: - Articles or web pages from a reputable news organization, magazine, or web publisher (with an editorial team) - Books from a reputable publishing company - Publications from a peer-reviewed academic journal Offline and non-English sources are accepted. If you can't find at least 2 sources that meet these requirements, then the topic doesn't pass the notability test and isn't suitable for Wikipedia. In this case, you're probably better off sharing your article somewhere else, such as Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or your personal blog. https://en.wikibooks.org https://en.wikibooks.org https://en.wikiversity.org https://en.wikiversity.org
      - ghaff 8y ago
        IMO this discussion about notability is making the original point upthread about hostility to newcomers. I also find it ironic that Wikipedia notability is so tied to traditional publishing sources. ADDED: I admit to falling pretty heavily on the inclusionist side; I'm pretty skeptical about notability at times.
        commoner 8y ago
        It's true that the rules of Wikipedia can be intimidating to new editors. There are two places where editors can ask for help: the Teahouse (for new editors) and the Help Desk (for anyone). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk
benj111 8y ago
I think the notability guidelines are wrong headed. There doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to whether something is deemed to be 'notable'. Worse, you put off people like the grandparent who actually attempt to contribute. We all want accurate and reliable sources, but why not work with people, rather than just deleting? Or why not a 2 stage process. Have a staging area for pages that aren't good enough. Then promoted to wikipedia proper when good enough? What happens in X years time, when that file format is 'notable'? You've lost the person most inclined to write the document, and lost historical context from a living document. The BBC had a habit in its early days of reusing 'old' film. What could have been a treasure trove is now lost. I cant help feeling wikipedia is being similarly short sighted. /rant (not aimed at you btw)
- commoner 8y ago
  That staging area exists, and it's called "Articles for creation" (AfC). The website directs new editors to the staging area for their first article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creatio... Drafts in AfC will not be deleted for being non-notable, but they will also not be indexed by search engines. When a draft is ready to be published, a reviewer looks over it and ensures that it is properly cited, before moving it to the encyclopedia proper.
  - benj111 8y ago
    That's getting closer to what I was thinking, but that's for new editors, not new articles. "Only experienced editors should ever create an article from scratch. Others should first create a draft page and build the article there." And as you say they aren't indexed.
    - commoner 8y ago
      Experienced editors usually create a "userspace draft", which is in a different staging area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Userspace_draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Userspace_draft Userspace drafts also won't be deleted for non-notability, and they can be published whenever the editor feels that they're ready. Neither of the draft spaces on Wikipedia are indexed by search engines, because these staging areas generally aren't proofread by other editors.
loup-vaillant 8y ago
> The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. Grandparent said it was rejected because of the citations, not because of any supposed lack of notability. Are you implying that reviewers refuse articles for other reasons than the ones they actually give? (Edit: from what I gather on this thread, the citations were both secondary and substantial, so the notability criterion was probably met.)
- detaro 8y ago
  Lack of citations establishing notability means wikipedia generally assumes something isn't notable enough, and per GPs words no such sources exist. (I'm not saying this is necessary a great and problem-free system, but that's how it works as far as I understand)

ndnxhs 8y ago

It is a very notable file format used by many devices and lots of software can read it. The only reason its hard to reference is because the company that develops it basically just publishes a C file with how to use it and everyone uses that to write their own implementations.

commoner 8y ago
Whether something is notable or not is subjective. Since many editors collaborate on Wikipedia, there's a common standard that editors use to judge whether a topic is notable. The test is called the "general notability guideline". In short, any topic needs to have at least 2 citations to different sources that meet all of the following requirements: 1. The source provides significant coverage (at least 1-2 sizable paragraphs) of the topic 2. The source is reliable 3. The source is a secondary source that is editorially and financially independent of the subject (and of the other source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_n... A manual for the file format would not meet requirement #3, since it's a primary source that was published by the company who developed it. This rule is in place to prevent companies from publishing information about their own products, and then promoting them on Wikipedia in a biased way.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  So if the official documentation isn't enough and info on random websites isn't enough than what possible source can be used? Do we have to find a group of academics to look at the file and write a PDF saying "yep the official docs are indeed correct"?
  - commoner 8y ago
    You can absolutely cite the official documentation, and it's considered a reliable source for your article. However, it isn't considered an independent source, since it was written by a company with a vested interest in the topic. To prove that the file type is notable, you'll need at least different 2 sources that meet all 3 requirements: they must provide significant coverage of the topic, be reliable, and be independent of the topic. You don't have to use these sources to write all of the content in your article, but they do have to be cited as references to pass the notability test. The three most common kinds of reliable sources are: - Articles or web pages from a reputable news organization, magazine, or web publisher (with an editorial team) - Books from a reputable publishing company - Publications from a peer-reviewed academic journal Offline and non-English sources are accepted. If you can't find at least 2 sources that meet these requirements, then the topic doesn't pass the notability test and isn't suitable for Wikipedia. In this case, you're probably better off sharing your article somewhere else, such as Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or your personal blog. https://en.wikibooks.org https://en.wikibooks.org https://en.wikiversity.org https://en.wikiversity.org
    - ghaff 8y ago
      IMO this discussion about notability is making the original point upthread about hostility to newcomers. I also find it ironic that Wikipedia notability is so tied to traditional publishing sources. ADDED: I admit to falling pretty heavily on the inclusionist side; I'm pretty skeptical about notability at times.
      - commoner 8y ago
        It's true that the rules of Wikipedia can be intimidating to new editors. There are two places where editors can ask for help: the Teahouse (for new editors) and the Help Desk (for anyone). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

benj111 8y ago

I think the notability guidelines are wrong headed. There doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to whether something is deemed to be 'notable'. Worse, you put off people like the grandparent who actually attempt to contribute. We all want accurate and reliable sources, but why not work with people, rather than just deleting? Or why not a 2 stage process. Have a staging area for pages that aren't good enough. Then promoted to wikipedia proper when good enough? What happens in X years time, when that file format is 'notable'? You've lost the person most inclined to write the document, and lost historical context from a living document. The BBC had a habit in its early days of reusing 'old' film. What could have been a treasure trove is now lost. I cant help feeling wikipedia is being similarly short sighted. /rant (not aimed at you btw)

commoner 8y ago
That staging area exists, and it's called "Articles for creation" (AfC). The website directs new editors to the staging area for their first article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creatio... Drafts in AfC will not be deleted for being non-notable, but they will also not be indexed by search engines. When a draft is ready to be published, a reviewer looks over it and ensures that it is properly cited, before moving it to the encyclopedia proper.
- benj111 8y ago
  That's getting closer to what I was thinking, but that's for new editors, not new articles. "Only experienced editors should ever create an article from scratch. Others should first create a draft page and build the article there." And as you say they aren't indexed.
  - commoner 8y ago
    Experienced editors usually create a "userspace draft", which is in a different staging area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Userspace_draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Userspace_draft Userspace drafts also won't be deleted for non-notability, and they can be published whenever the editor feels that they're ready. Neither of the draft spaces on Wikipedia are indexed by search engines, because these staging areas generally aren't proofread by other editors.

loup-vaillant 8y ago

> The file format you tried to write about isn't notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. Grandparent said it was rejected because of the citations, not because of any supposed lack of notability. Are you implying that reviewers refuse articles for other reasons than the ones they actually give? (Edit: from what I gather on this thread, the citations were both secondary and substantial, so the notability criterion was probably met.)

detaro 8y ago
Lack of citations establishing notability means wikipedia generally assumes something isn't notable enough, and per GPs words no such sources exist. (I'm not saying this is necessary a great and problem-free system, but that's how it works as far as I understand)