| Revision as of 21:02, 23 September 2006 view sourceCentrx (talk | contribs)37,287 edits Nothing on talk page; this has been standard practice for years now← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:35, 23 September 2006 view source Stephen B Streater (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,351 edits Add some Rationales inNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on ], as well as for the creation of subject-specific guidelines. | Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on ], as well as for the creation of subject-specific guidelines. | ||
| == Rationale == | |||
| Justifications for insisting on notability for article subjects include: | |||
| * Insufficient independent secondary sources can make it impossible to write a reliable verifiable article (see ], which is official policy) | |||
| * Lack of interest in an article can put it at risk of containing persistent errors (Including breaking ], which is official policy) | |||
| <!-- essays and the like should go in the category below, which serves as a general list of 'related issues' --> | <!-- essays and the like should go in the category below, which serves as a general list of 'related issues' --> | ||
Revision as of 21:35, 23 September 2006
 | This page documents an English Misplaced Pages ]. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. |
]
| Notability |
|---|
| General notability guideline |
| Subject-specific guidelines |
| See also |
- To read the essay on evaluating notability, see Misplaced Pages:Notability/Arguments.
Based on several sections in the policy on what Misplaced Pages is not, it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Misplaced Pages. The terms "importance" and "significant" are also in use, and for practical purposes on Misplaced Pages they are similar.
Several guidelines (see table on the right) have been created, or are under discussion, to define more precisely what these thresholds should be. They generally assert that a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself.
Articles on subjects with borderline notability are frequently merged into list articles (e.g. List of esoteric programming languages), or into an article on a related subject (e.g. articles about not-well-known relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person itself).
Articles on non-notable subjects are frequently nominated for Proposed Deletion and Articles for Deletion, and the article's merits are discussed, assessed and frequently ultimately deleted via those processes, as can be seen through precedents.
Notability or lack thereof are subjective, but both are valid arguments in discussions such as on WP:AFD, as well as for the creation of subject-specific guidelines.
Rationale
Justifications for insisting on notability for article subjects include:
- Insufficient independent secondary sources can make it impossible to write a reliable verifiable article (see WP:V, which is official policy)
- Lack of interest in an article can put it at risk of containing persistent errors (Including breaking WP:NPOV, which is official policy)
See also
This page documents the status quo. There are (and have been) several proposals to alter the status quo, such as:
- Misplaced Pages:Notability proposal, a failed proposal.
- Misplaced Pages:Notability/Proposal, another failed proposal.
- Misplaced Pages:Non-notability, an active proposal to use only verifiability in regard to whether "non-notable" subjects should be included in Misplaced Pages.