View source for User:Anon126/Explaining notability to newcomers

{{user essay|interprets=[[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]]|cat=[[Category:User essays on notability|Explaining notability to newcomers]]}}
{{nutshell|To avoid confusing new editors, experienced contributors should explain notability not with harsh phrases like "non-notable", but rather with more informative phrases like "does not meet the notability guidelines". Links to the relevant guidelines should {{em|always}} be provided.}}

Explaining the concept of [[WP:N|notability]] on Wikipedia to newcomers without [[WP:BITE|biting]] them can be difficult.

== Problem: "Notable" and "non-notable" ==

Logically, if a subject has ''notability'', then he/she/it is ''notable''. [[Inverse (logic)|Inversely]], if a subject does not have notability, then he/she/it is ''non-notable''. But saying that someone or something is "non-notable" is harsh, because it suggests a lack of worth, which is not what is meant.

Sometimes, people will make a link, as in "non-[[WP:N|notable]]", but this does not help much. Without any explanation, new contributors may not realize that Wikipedia uses a special sense of the term, and so will not be inclined to click the link.

== Failed solution: Renaming notability ==

Beginning in late August 2014, there was a discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Notability]] to rename the guideline, without changing its substance. The original goal was to alleviate the problems raised by terms such as ''non-notable'' described earlier. No previous discussion on this matter has gained [[WP:CON|consensus]] for a new term, and, as of early October 2014, this latest discussion has not gained consensus, either.

Aside from the lack of consensus on a new name, renaming notability would prove to be very difficult. Editors would have to learn the new name and be accustomed to it, and all [[:Category:Wikipedia notability|project pages concerning notability]] (and the category itself) would have to be renamed and rewritten.

== Current solution: Provide more explanation ==

Without any new name for this guideline, the solution is to provide more explanation upfront. This way, new contributors will understand that "notability" means something else than just "worth".

{{divbox|green||The subject does not meet the [[WP:N|notability guidelines]].}}
{{divbox|green||There do not seem to be [[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent]], [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to show that the subject meets the [[WP:N|notability guidelines]].}}

{{tick}} '''Good''': These explanations include the phrase "notability guidelines", which indicates that notability on Wikipedia is based on an established meaning, rather than the subjective whims of editors.

The second explanation goes one step further and presents some important points of the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]. Even without engaging the concept of notability, it appeals to a common-sense idea of sourcing: Many will understand that a lack of independent, reliable sources is a problem in an encyclopedia, whose goal is to provide [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] and [[WP:V|accurate]] information.

{{divbox|green||This does not meet the [[WP:NCORP|notability guidelines for organizations]].}}

{{tick}} '''Good''': This explanation exposes a subject-specific notability guideline. The SSNGs include alternatives to the GNG (significant coverage in independent, reliable sources) for demonstrating notability. These are varied, so including a link to the guideline is good to prevent a long-winded summary of those alternatives. Again, "notability guidelines" indicates an established meaning.

{{divbox|yellow||This fails [[WP:NCORP]].}}

{{yellow tick}} '''Possibly''': This explanation does not use the term ''non-notable'', and the unusual link would prompt newcomers to click the link to learn more. However, using a [[WP:SHORTCUT|shortcut]] without any description, as is done here, is [[WP:WTF|confusing and not recommended]].

{{divbox|red||The article does not show how the subject is [[WP:N|notable]].}}

{{cross}} '''Bad''': This explanation does little to expose the special meaning of ''notable'' and ''notability'' on Wikipedia. People already understand the usual meaning of the terms, so they may not click the link to learn about Wikipedia's special meaning.

== See also ==
* [[Template:AFC submission/comments]], standard reasons for declining an [[WP:AFC|articles for creation]] draft (which provide good explanations)
* [[Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything]] ([[WP:42]], [[WP:VRS]]), a brief summary of the general notability guideline
* [[User:Stifle/Don't just say non-notable]], an essay on a similar issue

{{User essays}}