Wikipedia talk:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.

Ways to overcome WP:Notability[edit]

  • The topic was notable but Wikipedians were not fully aware of the fact. This amounts to the same thing as a good-faith but erroneous {{notability}} tag. This can happen when notability could be established using print-, behind-paywall, or poorly-indexed content, but no editors are aware of the content during the "is this notable" discussion. This happens.
  • Wikipedia's standards of notability relax. Don't count on using this one.
  • The topic grows in notability over time. This is the most common way.

Wikipedia's standards of notability, like almost all of its standards, change slightly from day to day, month to month, and year to year as different editors with different ideas participate in the discussions or make different judgment calls when deciding to tag, de-tag, or not. However, over time this movement while not zero, isn't much, and very few articles of marginal notability would "fail" an AFD one year but "pass/no consensus" in a different year based only on a small change to Wikipedia's standards of notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on this, I came here just now to suggest that it would be fair to acknowledge in the essay that there is one thing that an author can do: present sources corroborating notability that the other editor(s), presumably having sought such sources before declaring a finding of non-notability, didn't find. Content changes can't help, but sources can. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"do we even want an article about that topic?"[edit]

I think this is an important essay but I am bothered by the focusing mantra that the essential question is whether we "want" an article on the topic. As stated: "it always boils down to this question: do we even want an article about that topic?" I don't think "want" captures well what the real question is. I would change this line to:

"it always boils down to this question: does the topic itself merit inclusion?

Any thoughts or alternate formulations?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days with no response, so I've gone ahead, but I've kept it more close to the original, instead of "do we even want...", it's now "should we even have..." I think the suggestion I made above is closer to the actual issue, but the original and now the change are more colloquial and accessible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Retroactively, I agree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)