Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Arguments

This is an essay, representing the opinion of some editors, but by no means all or most editors. This is not a policy or guideline. For a number of notability-related guidelines, see the infobox at the right.

--

A topic has notability if is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It is 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.

There is no official policy on where the line of notability lies. However, there are a number of consensual guidelines regarding notability within a limited subject field, such as for bands, for characters from fiction, and for websites – and some others are under development. See the template to the right. An article's failure to meet these suggested requirements is frequently used as an argument to delete said article on WP:AFD.

Lack of notability is often designated by the phrase "non-notable" or the abbreviation "nn". Whenever using the term or its abbreviation, please explain briefly why you consider the subject to be not notable (e.g. "has written a book but it was never published")

Definition

Much of the debate about notability comes from varying definitions of what notability is. If an editor describes an article non-notable, he or she may mean that it is original research, unverifiable, or a vanity page — all of which are criteria for deletion. If an editor says that a "non-notable" article should remain, he or she may mean that its relative obscurity does not make it unencyclopedic or preclude it in any other way.

Notability is sometimes used as a synonym for verifiability, although this is technically incorrect. Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.

Notability is related to importance. Articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people.

Notability is somewhat related to vanity guidelines. Wikipedia should not contain any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

Some Wikipedians feel that the term "notability" has acquired a bad reputation on Wikipedia because it is often used as a proxy for "I haven't heard of it" or "I don't think it's an interesting subject." However, one should generally assume that other editors don't mean this when talking about notability.

Notability and deletion

It has been argued that lack of "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.

However, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is not a strictly limited set of criteria for deletion. Articles are deleted on grounds of notability on a daily basis, and this has been common practice for over a year now.

Arguments for deleting non-notable articles

Obscure topics do not belong

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. Wikipedia is not a venue for unencyclopedic information. Some have said, "Why not write an article on your next-door neighbor's dog, as long as it's verifiable and NPOV?"

The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Many vanity articles are deleted because the people discussed are non-notable. Sometimes, there is some content in a non-notable article that can be merged into another article. For example, If a British boy wins an award from his police station for creating a new organization scheme for the British Police Cadets, he may write a vanity article about himself. It may be judged that the new organizational scheme was notable while the details of the award ceremony and the identity of the boy were non-notable. In this case, the notable content in the vanity article on the British boy can be merged into a larger article on cadet schemes in Britain.

Obscure topics clutter categories

Categories would both cease to be usable if flooded with articles on non-notable subjects.

There is a precedent

Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion.

Subjectivity is not a problem

The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it. When people mislabel an article as "non-notable", they can easily be convinced/outweighed by more knowledgable editors. AfD is a discussion, after all.

Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability

There is a lack of objective criteria

There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests. "Non-notable" is generally a non-NPOV designation. The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included.

Existing rules are sufficient

The no original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic. Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied.

Valid content is deleted

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance).

Obscure content isn't harmful

Wikipedia is not paper and (theoretically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

Deletion reform is necessary

A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a more constructive process, which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible. The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable.

See also

• Notability essay
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy
• Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles
• Wikipedia:Importance