Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Arguments: Difference between revisions
Neutrality (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
don't think this is an official guideline |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{guideline}} |
|||
'''Notability''' is something which is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It's an extension of the notion of "notoriety" [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base|for biographical articles]]. It differs, however, from [[Wikipedia:fame and importance|fame and importance]]; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are ''notable'', not all notable articles are ''famous'' or ''important''. |
'''Notability''' is something which is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It's an extension of the notion of "notoriety" [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base|for biographical articles]]. It differs, however, from [[Wikipedia:fame and importance|fame and importance]]; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are ''notable'', not all notable articles are ''famous'' or ''important''. |
||
Revision as of 06:02, 19 May 2005
Notability is something which is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It's an extension of the notion of "notoriety" for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable articles are famous or important.
It has been argued that "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research.
Since Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source—much less a vehicle for publication of direct observation—non-notable subjects do not belong in it. Some have said, "Why not write an article on your next-door neighbor's dog, as long as it's verifiable and NPOV?" Well, for one, because it's original research—your direct observations of the dog. If the dog appears in a reputable publication, that's another story.
Notability also speaks to verifiability. There is a level of ease with which facts can be checked that must be maintained in order to be verifiable in a practical sense: theoretical verifiability isn't enough. A garage band in Seattle may consist of Mike, Jeff, Scott and Mike, and that may theoretically be verifiable (if one traveled to Seattle); but that's not enough. One needs to be able to look it up in a book or on the Web. And not just any source: blogs, zines, e-zines, stuff you printed up, self-recorded CDs, and other "vanity media" don't count as "sources."
And a single source isn't really enough. No context or comparison is possible with a single source. The standard could apply to things which are public record (after all, many people have birth certificates, but that doesn't make us notable) or are mentioned once or twice in public works. Notable subjects will provide a choice of sources—even if only one is cited to begin with, future editors have the opportunity to counter, compare and revise according to information in other sources. Without this choice of sources, this isn't possible.