Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Notability changes
 | The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
Overview
This is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles.
Proposal
Specifically, this proposal is to add text to the following pages:
A) to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:
Wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable subjects Although there is debate about just what makes a subject notable, there is a consensus that a subject must be in some way significant, important, or notable for it to be a proper subject of an encyclopedic article. Articles on completely trival subjects, even if accurate and verifiable, are not appropriate.
B) to Wikipedia:Deletion policy
Problem with page Solution Add this tag * Is about a non-notable subject (see WP:NOT) List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD) {{subst:afd}}
(Note: this actually adds text only to the one cell in the first column of the existing table, the headers and the cells in the other columns are to make it clear exactly where the text is to be added.)
C) in Wikipedia:Notability
Replace 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 with Notability is generally deemed an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT), as it is one aspect of the requirement that an article be encyclopedic. Thus it complements our other criteria
Procedure
- This proposal will require 75 percent support ("Support" choices in a poll) to pass.
- Votes by users who are not logged in will be discounted, as will votes cast by any user that had less than 50 edits when this vote started.
- The wording of this proposal will be fixed when the poll has opened. Please do not edit this page, but discuss changes on the talk page.
- When the poll has opens it will take place on the /poll page
- The poll will close 2 weeks after it opens.
Arguments
Pro
- Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia. it is frequently cited as a reason for deletion on WP:AFD, it has been formalized as a reason for speedy deletion in at least one case (see WP:CSD#Articles point 7).
- WP:NOT already says: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. and Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. and Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. and Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. WP:VAIN asks us to consider if a person is "noteworthy".
- Most importantly, Wikipedia:Five pillars (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that articles must be encyclopedic. From this follows our requirement of the Neutral Point of View, and of verifiability. From this it also follows that articles should be about notable topics. While the degree of notability required may be debated, completely trivial topics do not belong in an encyclopedia, even one that is not paper.
Con
- Notability is too subjective – there is never a consensus on what is or isn't notable in any given field.
- Notability is just an excuse for "I haven't heard of it so delete it." Most of the people that nominate or vote on articles are not experts in the field in question, so this creates an exposure that valid content could be deleted.
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. Wikipedia is several times larger than any paper encyclopedia, so there is room for topics that would never appear in a paper encyclopedia.
- Using notability as a criterion for deletion as opposed to verifiability is much less polite to new users who write about obscure things or themselves.
- The deletion policy already deals with non-notable articles. It says that they should be merged into larger articles, thus building the encyclopedia up. If content can be used to help build better articles, it should be kept, not deleted.
- Most importantly, Wikipedia:Five pillars (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that articles must be encyclopedic. From this follows our requirement of the Neutral Point of View, and of verifiability. From this it follows that even subjects that might not be notable, such as Qubit Field Theory, should still be retained because its verifiability makes it encyclopedic. The verifiability rule already includes an implicit notability requirement, as few things that are completely non-notable are verifiable.
- "Notability" is not a reason to delete, just to merge.
- 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 constructive process which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible, and due to the high standards required of a reliable source, the vast majority of articles which proponents of a notability criterion would like to be deleted would in fact be deleted. On the other hand, making notability an official requirement would be a retrograde step away from this policy and would ensure that AfD continues to degenerate.
- Perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources should have an additional requirement that "dictionary/directory" sources (like DMV databases, dictionaries, almanacs, telephone directories, the Minot, North Dakota department of Public Works' database of city manholes and locations) may be used to establish facts about a topic; but a topic may not consist entirely of such sources? This might be an effective way of keeping pages of garage bands and other Wikipedia:vanity out, without appealing to a nebulous notability criteria that might exclude some topics that are verifiable, but some might not consider sufficiently important/excellent to merit inclusion? (My bias is to have a low threshold of notability--to keep out vanity and such, but to include topics which may be only of regional interest). --EngineerScotty 18:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, if this were policy, anything reported on by a reputable newspaper would be a proper subject for an artilcle. Auto accidents, rain storms, minor losing political candidates, meetings of local clubs, all are reported on by newspapers, and we must consider newspapers reliable sources in general. DES (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not every newspaper article need be treated the same. For instance, the weather section (as well as listings of sports scores, stock prices, and etc.) should be treated similarily to the telephone book--it can establish facts but not notability. To deal with the truly minor stuff; perhaps an additional rule can be proposed when questions arise--multiple sources, separated by time and/or distance. Even if a particularly grisly auto wreck gets front page coverage in a major metro newspaper on a slow news day, the time/distance rule might apply: was the wreck (and its aftermath) covered on multiple days? Did it receive attention elsewhere? Or was it a Tuesday-morning headline, forgotten on Wednesday? Likewise with the losing political candidate. Did the newspaper simply publish election results and candidate profiles? Or did the race receive significant and in-depth coverage, with the loser having an affect on public policy (despite losing)? In short, what do the sources say about the subject? I would be happy with a notability rule if: 1) it is made clear that notability may be documented--for any proposed article, regardless of subject; such documentation should be sufficient to reject an AfD on notability grounds; 2) the criteria for acceptable documentation of notability are made clear (which I have attempted to do in this thread), and 3) outside of such things as vanity articles and mere trivia, there are no categorical bars to articles on notability. Here, I'm referring to standards like "subjects in category X must meet standard Y to be considered notable". However, I'm OK with "if a subject in category X meets standard Y, then X is considered notable; otherwise notability must be demonstrated in some other fashion". I hope the difference between the two positions is clear. Often times, standards such as WP:MUSIC seem to be interpreted in the former fashion rather than the latter. --EngineerScotty 19:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I really hope we don't consider local papers to be reliable sources. I've been written about in my local paper and those articles have contained several blatant errors and a lot of minor inaccuracies. The same is true for almost any story where I have been close to the subject. The front page of the New York Times is dependable, and a story covered by multiple papers or by multiple reporters at the same paper is likely to be accurate, but one off stories about car crashes or profiles of local notables are far from reliable. - SimonP 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- What size coverage do you mean by a "local" paper? Anything smaller than the NYT? Is the leading daily in a medium-to-large sized city "reliable"--i.e. the Seattle Times or the Minneapolis Star-Tribune? What about a smaller city's paper--the Eugene Register-Guard, for instance? I agree that small-town newspapers can often have low-quality journalism... but what size and scale do you consider acceptable? --EngineerScotty 20:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I really hope we don't consider local papers to be reliable sources. I've been written about in my local paper and those articles have contained several blatant errors and a lot of minor inaccuracies. The same is true for almost any story where I have been close to the subject. The front page of the New York Times is dependable, and a story covered by multiple papers or by multiple reporters at the same paper is likely to be accurate, but one off stories about car crashes or profiles of local notables are far from reliable. - SimonP 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not every newspaper article need be treated the same. For instance, the weather section (as well as listings of sports scores, stock prices, and etc.) should be treated similarily to the telephone book--it can establish facts but not notability. To deal with the truly minor stuff; perhaps an additional rule can be proposed when questions arise--multiple sources, separated by time and/or distance. Even if a particularly grisly auto wreck gets front page coverage in a major metro newspaper on a slow news day, the time/distance rule might apply: was the wreck (and its aftermath) covered on multiple days? Did it receive attention elsewhere? Or was it a Tuesday-morning headline, forgotten on Wednesday? Likewise with the losing political candidate. Did the newspaper simply publish election results and candidate profiles? Or did the race receive significant and in-depth coverage, with the loser having an affect on public policy (despite losing)? In short, what do the sources say about the subject? I would be happy with a notability rule if: 1) it is made clear that notability may be documented--for any proposed article, regardless of subject; such documentation should be sufficient to reject an AfD on notability grounds; 2) the criteria for acceptable documentation of notability are made clear (which I have attempted to do in this thread), and 3) outside of such things as vanity articles and mere trivia, there are no categorical bars to articles on notability. Here, I'm referring to standards like "subjects in category X must meet standard Y to be considered notable". However, I'm OK with "if a subject in category X meets standard Y, then X is considered notable; otherwise notability must be demonstrated in some other fashion". I hope the difference between the two positions is clear. Often times, standards such as WP:MUSIC seem to be interpreted in the former fashion rather than the latter. --EngineerScotty 19:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Of course, if this were policy, anything reported on by a reputable newspaper would be a proper subject for an artilcle. Auto accidents, rain storms, minor losing political candidates, meetings of local clubs, all are reported on by newspapers, and we must consider newspapers reliable sources in general. DES (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Likewise, we can add a similar rule stating that a work of fiction may be used as a source when documenting elements (characters, locales) within the work of fiction, or a fictional universe, but works of fiction may not be the only source. (A similar rule would apply to published works whose primary purpose is to document fictional universes and describe fictional works, such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Cliff Notes, etc.). This would keep out most fancruft, but still allow fictional elements (like an article on the characters of Hamlet or Darth Vader) which have broad appeal beyond fans of the work in question. --EngineerScotty 18:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources should have an additional requirement that "dictionary/directory" sources (like DMV databases, dictionaries, almanacs, telephone directories, the Minot, North Dakota department of Public Works' database of city manholes and locations) may be used to establish facts about a topic; but a topic may not consist entirely of such sources? This might be an effective way of keeping pages of garage bands and other Wikipedia:vanity out, without appealing to a nebulous notability criteria that might exclude some topics that are verifiable, but some might not consider sufficiently important/excellent to merit inclusion? (My bias is to have a low threshold of notability--to keep out vanity and such, but to include topics which may be only of regional interest). --EngineerScotty 18:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is also sometimes an excuse for "I don't have an interest in the topic", "I consider the topic worthy of contempt", "I don't think the topic is sufficiently excellent (i.e. an NBA benchwarmer)", etc.
Discussion
Please discuss this proposal on the talk page.