Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

move to user page[edit]

Oh come on... That essay is just silly beyond measure and contains some blatant attempts at misrepresenting the issue.

Notability is inherintly a vague and ambiguous term (...) used to mean any of the following:

and then the first definition given is "popularity"!. That's just an insult to everyone's intelligence. And let me say this again: policy should never, ever be determined by Wikipedia's ability to attract donors. Given the clear failure of the previous proposal this whole essay should go on Fresheneesz's user page where it belongs. Pascal.Tesson 12:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This page has been edited by many more people than just myself - so whatever it may be, its not something that should be on my user page. And notability is definately used as synonymous with "popularity" - think of the people that might say "How many people really care about this subject? - definately delete as non notable". Fresheneesz 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That is false. The essay was written entirely by Fresh, the only thing several other people have contributed is fixing typoes. >Radiant< 08:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The history doesn't reflect the actual history of the page. This page was started as a copy edit from WP:NNOT - most of it material I didn't specifcically write to begin with. Check your facts radiant, and check the history of WP:NNOT. Fresheneesz 07:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's really easy to confuse the criterion of notability (i.e. that an article should be notable) with the criteria for notability (coverage in the media, for example). The latter are used to establish notability, but they are not what we mean by notability. So yes, sometimes what people mean when they say notable is more like useful, valuable, even popular. So I don't think that part of the essay was an insult to everyone's intelligence. (However, I agree that the ability to attract donors is a little irrelevant - perhaps that should be cut out of the essay.)
So my two cents' worth is this: the essay is valuable, interesting reading and food for thought at the very least. I find the arguments convincing and well put. What I would like to see, however, is either a discussion of the counter-arguments, or a link to such an essay or discussion. That is, if this article puts the case 'against' requiring notability, we need a link in the "see also" section to a 'for' essay or discussion. (The actual notability guideline jumps straight in to the policy without any discussion of rationale.) -- BenBildstein 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Two more cents': Reading Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments and User:Uncle_G/On_notability, I feel like we've lost something fundamental in the notion of notability. Specifically, the first suggests it can be entirely appropriate to keep and cherish articles that are non-notable. Perhaps this is the consensus of the editors, but it's just not explained at WP:N.
Also, I came across a good example of a encyclopaedic, reliably sourced, (and useful) topic which I noticed did not seem to be notable, and so I felt obliged to label it as such. -- BenBildstein 06:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wonderful essay ! Bless you ! From Alabama, U.S.A. 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hear Hear ! Let's build a base of knowledge while sharing a positive spirit and attitude of acceptance. 12:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More links[edit]

I've added Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments and User:Uncle_G/On_notability to the "See also" section, because I think they are useful. -- BenBildstein 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)