Forum:Notability

Whether or not a topic is notable enough to have its own article has been a problem for this wiki for several years. There have been numerous discussions about it, sometimes to determine the notability of one topic, other times to determine the notability of several unrelated but similar topics. These discussions rarely go anywhere because the wiki has no firm definition of what is and isn't notable. Without this sort of guideline people end up basing their decisions on existing articles and inconsistency reigns.

It is time the wiki set some notability criteria.

Statements
Read the following statements. Consider each statement and evaluate it on its own. Then, for each statement, indicate whether you agree or disagree by signing ( ~ ) under the corresponding heading. Try not to be neutral. Try not to abstain. Please hold comments until the end.

Exists
"A topic is notable by virtue of its existence. Ex: Naruto Uzumaki is notable because he exists; a flower he wears on his lapel is notable because it exists."

statement updated 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:01, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * 1)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  03:39, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 08:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC) Updated since example was added.
 * 3) Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:42, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Name
"A topic is notable if it has been properly named within the series. Ex: Sasuke Uchiha is notable because he is named in the manga; Kusushi is notable because he is named in the databooks; Kokuyō is notable because he is named in the anime's ending credits."

statement updated 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * 1) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 08:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC) Updated since example was added.
 * 4) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:43, January 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:01, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Title
"A topic is notable if, although it has not been properly named, it has a unique in-universe title or description. Ex: the Second Mizukage does not have a known name, but he is notable because there is no other "Second Mizukage"."

statement updated 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:02, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 17:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:45, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree

Relation
"A topic is notable if, although it has not been properly named, it can easily be described in terms of a named topic. Ex: Ino's Mother is easily described in terms of her relation to Ino; A guy that insulted Ino because she was wearing white after Labor Day is not easily described in terms of his relation to Ino."

statement updated 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * 1) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:46, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:03, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 08:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC) Updated since example.

Description
"A topic is notable if all that is known about it cannot reasonably be conveyed in an article that is likely to link to it. Ex: Sakura Haruno's medical proficiency, Inner persona, and the fact that she fought Sasori cannot reasonably be mentioned in each and every article that links to her; Iwagakure Bodyguard's function in accompanying the Tsuchikage can reasonably be mentioned in each and every article that links to him."

statement updated 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:04, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 17:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * 1)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:47, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Appear 2
"A topic is automatically notable if it has appeared on at least 2 separate occasions."


 * Agree


 * Disagree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:04, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:48, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Appear 3
"A topic is automatically notable if it has appeared on at least 3 separate occasions."


 * Agree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:05, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:49, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * 1)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Databook
"A topic is NOT  notable if it appeared in the manga and the databook for that portion of the series did not give it special mention. Ex: Earth Release: Earth Shaking Palm was never named, pictured, or alluded to in the second databook, and therefore is  NOT  notable."

statement updated 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * Disagree
 * 1)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 17:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:49, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue 1
"A character is automatically notable if they have had at least 1 line of dialogue."


 * Agree


 * Disagree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 08:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:50, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue 3
"A character is automatically notable if they have had at least 3 lines of dialogue."


 * Agree
 * 1) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:51, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:08, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 08:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue 5
"A character is automatically notable if they have had at least 5 lines of dialogue."


 * Agree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:09, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:51, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * 1) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 08:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Unique
"An ability, item, or group is notable if its uniqueness cannot reasonably be argued. Ex: an apparently new jutsu that shapes water into the form of a Jeep Grand Cherokee is notable because it cannot be argued that a jutsu like that has appeared before; an apparently new jutsu where the user breathes fire that lacks unique properties or appearance is not notable because it can be argued that it is any other jutsu where a user breathes fire."

statement updated 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree
 * 1) 71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:10, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan
 * 2)  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  02:57, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Norleon (talk) 10:07, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- The Goblin  13:00, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 17:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:52, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree

Discussion
All contributors to the wiki are welcomed to weigh in with their opinions. On January 23 the discussion will be closed and a standard will be drawn from the views expressed. Once this standard is agreed upon, all existing and future articles will be expected to live up to that standard.

The results of this forum are most likely to affect the articles listed below. You may wish to examine the list to decide where exactly you draw the line with notability.

If you have anything to discuss, please do so below. Please also suggest new statements that would be useful in formulating a guideline or ways in which existing statements can be clarified/improved. ~SnapperTo 01:12, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

One thing i say off the bat is that we should have pages for each group, clan, village, etc, to put down unnamed characters or things that play a semi-important role in the story. Like a disambiguation page of sorts for minor characters. Cause to tell the truth i'm tired of having Jutsu articles that have no user listed for it, and i'm like "who used it?". We could simply have a redirect for that character on that page.71.71.58.231 (talk) 02:15, January 9, 2013 (UTC) Yomiko-chan


 * Ok I'm confused. What is all this?--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 12:26, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Somewhat related topics:
 * Talk:Orochimaru's Previous Body
 * Talk:Body-Splitting Technique ~ Ultimate  Supreme  12:30, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Is anybody else in favor of minor clan member articles? I seem to recall seeing one made up for the Hyūga clan a while back, but it was either deleted or was made in a user's sandbox.--BeyondRed (talk) 03:19, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty then. First off, I'd just like everyone to check the further results on the table, just so that you all can grasp the magnitude of what the decisions here will make on the wikia. That being said, there are things here that I neither agree not disagree with so I'll put those responses here: Basically that's it for me, it all comes down to priorities. Doing away with most of those articles there would, in my opinion, cause the wikia to "suffer" a great deal of information loss. Still, this move is a good one.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 17:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Relation- Neutral. I believe issues like this should have priorities attached to them.
 * Description- Would like an example for this though.
 * Appear 2- Doesn't have to have own article, mentioning the information elsewhere, however, should always be done.
 * Appear 3- Same as former. Unless character/item seems to play key/integral role and information becomes "too much" for mentioning in a section or else there's no suitable place else to put it.
 * Dialogue 1-5 - If character has name. Else mentioned next best place, until character is named.


 * Put my opinions in. However, I would like to point out that the list of results provided by Snapper2 is very wrong in some places (it has suggested pages which don't even need to be deleted) --Speysider Talk Page 20:40, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Cerez:
 * Re: relation - That is of course the case. No one of these statements will, by themselves, determine a topic's notability. It is when a topic is evaluated in terms of the wiki's stance on all of the statements that its notability would be determined. So a character may have a simple relation to another character, but they have never spoken, appeared only once, and can easily be described in their entirety every time they are mentioned. So while they satisfy 1 criterion, they fail 3 others.
 * Re: description - I've added an example for this and some other statements.
 * Re: appear and dialogue - These are of course not hard numbers. They're to determine if the wiki makes any kind of distinction, if it has a line in the sand.
 * @Speysider: Of course not every article listed would be deleted. That's merely the simplest list of articles that might not be notable.
 * Some of the examples I added were because people were not responding the way I expected them to, and so clearly my intention was missed. I have attached timestamps to these updated statements so that people can know which !votes were placed before the update. If you have made an !vote before an update, you may wish to change or reaffirm (by updating the signature date (5 tildes: )) your !vote. ~SnapperTo 20:48, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples. Sorta fell like I was in a final exam and didn't study for it. Made some updates and changed some votes.--Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 08:08, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

You know what, you need  ~  Ultimate  Supreme  08:28, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * wuzzat? ~SnapperTo 09:53, January 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Something humourous that crossed my mind seeing the word vote lots of time. It is a defunct article voting system (wkvoteart).
 * This is the code (or part of it):
 * https://github.com/Wikia/app/blob/dev/extensions/wikia/WikiaApi/WikiaApiQueryVoteArticle.php
 * But there's a sufficient amount of documentation on the API page, I think: http://naruto.wikia.com/api.php
 * Each vote is user specific and the average shown is the average of all the rates. Everybody see the same rate. It is persisted in the wiki database and lasts forever. It shows which pages are popular. It can be studied by request like this or shown by markup like . It is used by some wikis for cleanup. ~  Ultimate  Supreme  12:47, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

While I know several of these are interlinked and likely to affect one another, I think some at base, don't stand well on their own. I mean Raido's Ebony Sword has only appeared once, as has Kakashi's white light chakra sabre, but both are indeed notable. So I think if something has appeared repeatedly, and I don't mean like a bowl or something, but if something has shown up twice it's at least noteworthy, three times definitely worth mention. Similarly so, while I don't think a flower on Naruto's lapel would be worth mentioning, something like the Hokage's necklace, the symbol of the Whirlpool village, stuff that has been there for god knows how long take on their own significance later and are worthy of note from then. Also I think the relation example needs work. While it's not a title, I don't think Ino has more than one mother, making it sorta link back to the Title example to me. Oh well, at least we're getting this sorted at last. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 17:59, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh, I also forgot to mention that the dialogue one is a bit vague, isn't it? I mean there can be characters in a story who don't speak even once and yet are the core of it. Link anyone? But then again, I guess that's one of the ones that interlink. I suppose if a character is named and have one line it's fine, but I guess that's for establishing a standard for characters who don't have any significance besides their lines? Gah, this is all just very confusing for me. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 18:03, January 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Ultimate: That went over my head.
 * @Hawkeye: As I said above, failure to meet one criteria would not render a topic non-notable. The two swords you mentioned may only appear once, but they benefit from having names and being unique. And I think you're confusing notable with noteworthy. The Uzumaki's swirl is certainly noteworthy, but you wouldn't argue that it's notable enough for its very own article, would you? At least based only on what is currently known about it?
 * I'm not sure how to improve the Relation example because most of the wiki's articles like that are relatives of another character. I guess that satisfies the intentions for the statement: is a topic notable if it is closely related to (although not necessarily a relative of) another topic? Maybe Orochimaru's Previous Body would be a better example, but then I don't feel that that's easily described in terms of its relation to Orochimaru because it's previous relative to what? His current body? The body before? What about when it was his "current" body, not his "previous" one? This may also satisfy my intention: does the difficulty that comes with creating some arbitrary article title affect its notability? To say something on how Title ideally differs from Relation: cases that satisfy Title would have some Japanese to go along with them. The White Zetsu Army has no official name, but it's been described as 白ゼツの10万. Ino's mother does not have that luxury.
 * Yes, the purpose of the Dialogues is to decide if dialogue helps make a character notable and if there's some general amount of dialogue that gains notability. You can substitute the numbers with words if you want; 1 = few, 3 = some, 5 = many. Based on the current opinions, the criteria would be, "Having a single line of dialogue does not make a character notable enough to have an article. Although there is no set number of lines a character must say in order to become notable, it is generally felt that the more they say, the more notable they become." Or something to that effect. If the wiki feels hard numbers would be better, then we can go that route.
 * The purpose of this is to come up with a list of qualities that make a topic notable enough for its own article. Once that is in place, participants in future deletion discussions will need to determine their stance by how the article measures against the wiki's notability criteria and not by what other articles exist. So I wouldn't be able to say, "keep this article because these other articles should be deleted first." I would need to say, "keep this article because it is named, can't be described easily, and appears in a movie and video game." How a person chooses to weigh each notability criteria is up to them. Maybe they think an article needs to meet the majority of the criteria, maybe they think meeting one specific criteria is enough. In essence, discussions would be about the merit of the topic being discussed, not the merits of other tangentially similar topics. ~SnapperTo 21:36, January 10, 2013 (UTC)