Misplaced Pages

:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Non-notability: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Historical archive | Policy | Notability Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:33, 23 June 2006 editSimetrical (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,694 edits →Introduction: Split off and rewrite← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:55, 13 July 2024 edit undoHex (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators25,316 editsm Scott moved page Misplaced Pages:Notability/Historical/Non-notability to Misplaced Pages:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Non-notability: Add to collection of policy pages in the historical archive 
(207 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Rejected|WP:NNOT}}
{{proposed|]}} <!-- use ] when consensus is reached -->


"Notability criteria" can be more practically and efficiently met by referring to existing official guidelines or policy. Editors are encouraged to assess articles on grounds of ], ], ], and ] instead of resorting to vague words such as "notability". This concept does not override either the ] or any other existing policy; it simply encourages editors to use policy rather than the ''abstract concept of notability.''
{| class="messagebox" id="pnutshell"
|-
|style="text-align: center"|This proposal in a nutshell:
|-
|style="text-align: center"| '''Lack of notability may indicate an article's misadherance to policy, but it is not in and of itself evidence of such.'''
|}


== Definitions of "notable" ==
This essay is a proposition for being a guideline. It attempts to demonstrate both the proposed guideline, and justify the need for such guidelines.
According to a dictionary, "notable" can refer to one of two general concepts:
*"Notable" can mean "worthy of note". A "note" is a written record, so notable means "worthy of written records".
*"Notable can refer to the concept of being important, significant, famous, unique, etc.


Of these two definitions, only the first is in line with Misplaced Pages policy and practice.
Many wikipedians have debated the issue of notability, or more precicely where to draw the line between what articles to keep and which to throw out. This policy discusses the meaning of notability in the context of Misplaced Pages, assesses the need for debating notability and advises caution in using notability as a criterion in and of itself.


==Reasons for including articles on non-notable topics==
== Introduction ==
* ] because they encourage new editors to join, and encourage new readers to read.
Non-notability is a shorthand used by some editors to describe articles whose subject has not achieved sufficient attention to enable editors to verify that it is covered neutrally. Above all, ], a collection of ''that which is already known'' and can be documented from ].
* ] because most would not be ].
* ] nearly as many system resources as articles that are read and edited more often.
* ]


==Ways of improving non-notable articles==
==Arguments in favor of notability==
An article on a non-notable subject can develop in various ways:
Many arguments are advanced as to why notability is important. All of those at ] follow, with modifications and additions:


# Articles that lack quality can be tagged as such, or readers can judge for themselves that a page is not written with the same standards as other articles. A suggested fix is to specially mark articles of quality, and also articles without quality.
=== Non-notable topics do not belong ===
# Categories can be reorganized or further split off to form smaller more specific categories in which to place topics of differing degrees of fame.
<blockquote>Since Misplaced Pages is not a primary or secondary source — much less a vehicle for publication of direct observation — non-notable subjects do not belong in it. ] a venue for unencyclopedic information. Some have said, "Why not write an article on your next-door neighbor's dog, as long as it's verifiable and NPOV?"</blockquote>
# Articles on non-verifiable subjects, or topics that directly violate official policy leave themselves open to being deleted.
Indeed, why not? In practice, it would be very difficult to make the article verifiable. But if someone manages it, there's nothing wrong with letting it sit unviewed. Saying that something "does not belong" is not a reasoned argument; what are the costs and benefits?


These solutions are proposed to fix any potential problems associated with having articles of varying quality and size on Misplaced Pages (this happens anyhow, notwithstanding non-notability). Articles on topics which "will be significant one day" may fall foul of "]". The subject should be judged as it is known now outside Misplaced Pages, not the current or potential content. Some articles are said to be incapable of being written in a ] fashion - however that is simply another crystal-ball judgement on the integrity of future editors.
===Non-notable topics do not attract editors===
<blockquote>Not enough Misplaced Pages users will take enough interest in your next-door neighbour's dog to ensure that the article is accurate, even if the information is theoretically verifiable.</blockquote>
Perhaps. But remember that ''verification'' is not the criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, ''verifiability'' is. Will someone verify it ]? Perhaps, perhaps not. But consider:


One exception is ]. These articles require careful handling, and articles which are uncomplimentary and hard to verify should be fixed or deleted as soon as possible.
#Such an article will be tagged appropriately, so that readers are aware that the info hasn't been double-checked. Therefore, no one is going to be misled: they will know the info is dubious, will treat it appropriately, and will only benefit. Information that may or may not remain uncertified is surely a better advancement of our goal of ] than no information at all.
#The number of people who view the verifiable information is inversely proportional to the probability that it will be verified. In theory, sure, we'll have more unverified articles sitting on our servers. But does it really make a difference if nobody actually views them? They're just bits sitting on a computer then; certainly they don't harm anyone. If, by any chance, someone ''does'' view the article, they'll be able to correct it.
#This point suggests that the question is not "notability", but "how many of our readers will look at the article". They're quite different concepts: notability is both too broad and too narrow to cover the latter. An article on ] would certainly be viewed by very few editors, and even fewer would have any hope of being able to verify the information in it, but it would nevertheless be notable by most people's standards; on the other hand, an article on a small webcomic or on ] would be viewed and verified by many people, but such articles are routinely rejected as non-notable. Instituting notability guidelines isn't a good, or even reasonable, solution to this problem.


'''<span style="font-size:medium;">Improve the article</span>'''
===Non-notable topics clutter categories===
:Follow the suggestions in the {{template|Sofixit}} template, and ]! Edit the article so that it establishes the importance of the subject. Let's say you come across this stub:
Not at all: this is what we have subcategories for. If someone wanted to search for ''notable'' American writers, they could go to ] and the categories thereof, which would be roughly parallel to our current ] (assuming the situation got sufficiently out of hand that that would be required). With the implementation of ], this would become even easier, the equivalent of flipping a switch while searching (ideally even on by default, depending on precise implementation). Specific categories may have more precise notability subcategories if logical, such as ].


::'''Eric Moussambani''' is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea.
===This is against current guidelines===
Of course it is—it's a proposal to repeal certain guidelines that have gained currency.


:Verifiable, factual, neutral, but fails to make any assertion of importance. But we know there is more to it than that! How about expanding it to read:
===Non-notable articles waste system resources===
The financial burden of storage space should not be considered when writing. Storage cost is approximately two million words per penny! ] ] (who "maintain overall responsibility for all technical functions of the Foundation, including both hardware and software") has : "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." In the event that Misplaced Pages cannot support certain categories of content, a decision will be made by server technicians, not editors.


::'''Eric "The Eel" Moussambani''' is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who achieved worldwide fame after finishing in the slowest time ever recorded in the Men's 100m Freestyle finals at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Moussambani had never seen a 50m pool before the competition.
===Minor issues are not encyclopedic===
Not at all. They aren't fit for a ''paper'' encyclopedia, perhaps, but ]. Some definitions of ''encyclopedia'':


:The subject now asserts importance! The problem is gone.
; : A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.
; : a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
<!-- add more! -->


'''<span style="font-size:medium;">Merging</span>'''
As you can see, nothing about notability. That ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'' doesn't have room for things about webcomics is a failing of their medium, not anything we're bound to replicate.
:Information which is verifiable can be merged into a more major article, so as to make the information easier to find and manage (but not so as to give it ]). If merging the information would put ''undue weight'' on a main article; '''and''' the separating out of the information does not constitute a ]; '''and''' it does not violate official policy or guidelines, then the information may be kept on its own page rather than merged. '''However''', note also that though a minority view may be spelled out in great detail, to maintain our ] it should not be represented as the truth. Further, the separate page should refer back to the main article.


'''<span style="font-size:medium;">Userfying</span>'''
==Arguments against notability==
:Articles about garage bands whose lead singer matches the name of the user who created the article are a common occurrence on Misplaced Pages, and are frequent cases of non-notable content. These and similar instances can be ] by any editor, and the remaining redirect can be tagged for ] as a cross-namespace redirect. You can leave a polite notice such as {{template|nn-userfy}} to explain what you did, and why (and don't forget to {{template|Welcome}} them!).
<!-- this needs expansion -->


'''<span style="font-size:medium;">Transwiki</span>'''
Some reasons why non-notable subjects may not be a problem:
:Some information which has no place in an encyclopedia can find a happy home in a sister project such as ]. However, most wikibook information not suitable for wikipedia can be condensed and summarized so that it is encyclopedic.
# They may simply not violate any policies or guidelines.
# Lack of apparent notability might indicate ]
# They may be interesting to more people than you think.
# They may be reoccuring pages that, once deleted, reappear because editors repeatedly think an article should be written about the certain subject.
# Lack of easy verifiability might be down to ].
# They may be stubs about significant subjects which can grow and improve over time.
# Deleting non-notable articles may be a controversial and time-consuming procedure.
# Deleting articles based on non-notability alone may cause some users to be frustrated with wikipedia.


'''<span style="font-size:medium;">Tagging for cleanup</span>'''
Some of these might be valid reasosns for keeping an article, others might not. For example, we sometimes deliberately keep and expand articles on subjects from lesser-known parts of the world in order to ]. However many times an article on a crank theory is created, it will always remain a crank theory. While it is not our job to predict the future, it is our job to remove biased information that cannot be covered neutrally from reliable secondary sources.
:The {{template|Notability}} template is one of many standard templates which can be applied to an article which fails to establish the importance of its subject. See the ] page for more details of these.


'''<span style="font-size:medium;">Deleting</span>'''
Deleting "non-notable" information may also be seen as frustrating and punishing to (usually new) users for editing - ].
:If an article cannot be merged or by nature of the subject conform to policy, then it can be ] if sufficient consensus is reached, via ], ], or ]. '''Now for an important caveat:''' This is a last resort and should only be used if the ''subject'' of the article is the problem, rather than the article's ''content''. Indeed, it is most likely a failing of the article content if it fails to explain why the subject is notable, so always try to fix content before deleting a subject. If the subject ] that the article cannot be improved, then it is a ] and should be listed there after a reasonable amount of time per ] or ].


== Misconceptions - Non-notability is not...==
==Ways of fixing non-notable articles==
Non-notability is often assumed to be equivalent or related to one or more of the deficiencies listed in the following subsections. These are not allowed on Misplaced Pages for their own individual reasons, under specific policies or guidelines. When deciding an article's worthiness for Misplaced Pages, be sure the article is judged against these specific criteria, not against notability '']''.
An article on a non-notable subject can go one of a number of ways:


===]===
# No solution can be had for articles on non-veriable subjects, or topics that directly violate official policy.
All information on Misplaced Pages must be written from an accessible and ]. While non-verifiable information is often not notable either (such as what I have in my pocket), in many cases non-notable information is verifiable. For example, ] is a little known quantum theory but is certainly verifiable. Something is verifiable only if it can be substantiated from ] that can be verified '''by wikipedians'''. It is not sufficient for an article to be simply theoretically verifiable. If the only source about something is its promoter and their press releases, it is not verifiable. Look for multiple non-trivial mentions in independent academic or mainstream publications: the article must be verifiable from ''reliable secondary sources''.
# Articles that lack quality can be tagged as such - or readers can simply judge for themselves that a page is simply not written with the same standards as other articles - a suggested fix is to specially mark articles of quality, and also articles without quality.
# Categories can be reorganized or further split off to form smaller more specific categories in which to place topics of any amount of fame.
# System resources should almost never be considered when contemplating keeping information vs not keeping information.


<blockquote style="text-align: center;">"''It isn't the lack of '''fame''' that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability.''"<br />
These solutions are proposed to fix any potential problems associated with having articles of varying quality and size on wikipedia - as is the case notwithstanding non-notable articles. Articles are in some cases said to not be able to be written in a ] fashion; this can be fixed. Articles on things which "will be significanct one day" may fall foul of ] - judge the subject, as it is known now outside Misplaced Pages, not the current or potential content.
– Jimbo Wales ()</blockquote>


===]===
One exception is ] - these articles require careful handling, and articles which are uncomplimentary and hard to verify should be fixed or deleted as soon as possible.
Neutrality is non-negotiable. By extension we must not give ] to minor points of view. We must therefore be able to verify that a subject is covered neutrally. The section on undue weight notes however that minor points of view can be given as much attention as major points of view, in articles specifically devoted to those minor points of view.


An article may not include information that arbitrarily favors one side or another. However, ] in non-notable articles (as in notable articles) is most often written by an editor who has knowledge or interest in the subject, and who may contribute intended or unintended bias. This is a fixable problem, and biased non-notable articles can just as easily be corrected as biased notable articles, provided that the subject has been covered widely enough that there is informed discussion available for reference.
=== See {{template|sofixit}} ===
]! Edit the article so that it establishes the importance of the subject. Let's say you come across this stub:


===]===
:'''Eric Moussambani''' is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea.
In a paper encyclopedia, non-notable topics are not included for practical purposes. Misplaced Pages, however, is a very different model not confined by this limitation. As the word "encyclopedia" is defined by dictionaries, notability is not a requirement; '']'' is an encyclopedia, for instance. (Note that ''The Star Trek Encyclopedia'' differs from Misplaced Pages is several key ways, particularly in that it relies on one singular primary source and that it is in an ] style.) See also an ] which argues against the claim that "Minor issues are not encyclopedic".


=== ] ===
Verifiable, factual, neutral, but fails to make any claim of notability. But we know there is more to it than that! How about expanding it to read:
Non-notable articles may consist of large amounts of original research. However, this is definitely not always the case. Non-notable subjects are subject to the same scrutiny of original research as notable pages are. Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere this research, notable or not.


==See also==
:'''Eric "The Eel" Moussambani''' is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who achieved worldwide fame after finishing in the slowest time ever recorded in the Men's 100m Freestyle finals at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Moussambani had never seen a 50m pool before the competition.


'''Existing practice'''
The subject is notable! The problem is gone.
* ]
* ]
* ]


'''Proposals'''
=== Merging ===
* ] — a failed proposal for defining "notability" in Misplaced Pages context
One is encouraged to '''merge''' that information which is verifiable, and verifiably significant, onto a main article - so as to make the information easier to find and easier to manage. Once a main article gets too large, its component peices can be split off to form their own articles (forking), although there are some restrictions on this. Leave a redirect behind, with the page history, to comply with ].
* ] — a second failed proposal of this sort
* ] — a new proposal of the same sort.


'''Essays'''
However, if there is a significant amount of information that would put ] on the main article, it might be better too keep the information on separate pages (although note that sometimes the existence of a separate article in and of itself constitutes undue weight, for example in the case of a minor theory with few adherents).
* ]
* ], an essay arguing against the need for a formal notability policy.
* ], an essay arguing the need for a formal notability policy.
* ] (somewhat conflicting with the previous one).
* ], an essay arguing that invoking non-notability for deletion can antagonize new users.
* ], an essay advocating a non-subjective, workable notability criterion for Misplaced Pages.
* ]


]
=== Userfying ===
Articles about garage bands whose lead singer matches the name of the user who created the article are a common occurrence on Misplaced Pages - possibly the most common source of non-notable content. These can be ] by any editor and the remaining redirect tagged for ] as a cross-namespace redirect. You can leave a polite notice such as {{template|nn-userfy}} to explain what you did, and why (and don't forget to {{template|welcome}} them!).

=== Transwiki ===
Some things which have no place in an encyclopaedia can find a happy home in a sister project such as ].

=== Tagging for cleanup ===
The {{template|importance}} template is one of many standard templates which can be applied to an article which does not establish its importance. See the ] page for more details of these.

=== Deleting ===
By consensus, if an article fails to assert the importance of its subject then it can be ], speedily or via ] or ]. This is a last resort and should only be used if the ''subject'' of the article is the problem, rather than the article's ''content''. Always try to fix content before deleting a subject.

==Non-notability is not==
Because they often overlap, and because it is sometimes carelessly used, non-notability is often assumed to be equivalent to one or more of the following defenciencies which are not allowed on Misplaced Pages for their own, individual reasons. When deciding an article's worthiness for Misplaced Pages, be sure the article is judged against these specific problems.

===]===
All information on Misplaced Pages must be written from an accessible and ]. While non-verfiable information is often not notable either (such as what I have in my pocket), in many casess non-notable information is verifiable. For example, ] is a little known quantum theory but is certainly verifiable. Something is verifiable only if it can be substantiated from ]. If the only source about something is its promoter and their press releases, it is not verifiable. Look for mutiple non-trivial mentions in independent academic or mainstream publications: it must be verifiable from ''reliable secondary sources''.

{| align=center
|-align=center
|"''It isn't the lack of '''fame''' that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability.''"
|- align=center
| - Jimbo Wales .
|}

===]===
Neutrality is non-negotiable. By extension we must not give undue prominence to minor points of view. We must therefore be able to verify that a subect is covered neutrally.

An article may not include information that arbitrarily favors one side or another. However, ] in non-notable articles (like in notable articles) is most often written by an editor who has knowledge or interest in the subject, and may contain intended or unintended bias. This is a fixable problem, and biased non-notable articles can just as easily be corrected as notable biased articles - provided that the subject has been covered widely enough that there is informed discussion available for reference.

===Non-encyclopedic===
In a paper encyclopedia, non-notable topics were not included for practical purposes. Misplaced Pages, however, is a very different model not confined by this limitation. Therefore, what is non-encyclopedic in ] is not neccessarily non-encyclopedic here. As defined by a dictionary, an encyclopedia is marked by covering the span of human knowledge. An encyclopedic article on Misplaced Pages is one that is both ] and ], but is not ]. Therefore, a non-notable article is not neccessarily a non-encyclopedic article on wikipedia, provided it can be independently verified.

==System resources==
The financial burden of storage space should not be considered when writing. Storage cost is approximately two million words per penny! ] ] (who "maintain overall responsibility for all technical functions of the Foundation, including both hardware and software") has : "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." In the event that Misplaced Pages cannot support itself, a decision will be initiated by server technicians, not editors.

==See also==
*] - A rejected proposal to not include non-notable articles
*] - An essay on notability
*]

Latest revision as of 15:55, 13 July 2024

Red crossThis is a failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.		Shortcut

"Notability criteria" can be more practically and efficiently met by referring to existing official guidelines or policy. Editors are encouraged to assess articles on grounds of verifiability, original research, neutrality, and What wikipedia is not instead of resorting to vague words such as "notability". This concept does not override either the five pillars or any other existing policy; it simply encourages editors to use policy rather than the abstract concept of notability.

Definitions of "notable"

According to a dictionary, "notable" can refer to one of two general concepts:

  • "Notable" can mean "worthy of note". A "note" is a written record, so notable means "worthy of written records".
  • "Notable can refer to the concept of being important, significant, famous, unique, etc.

Of these two definitions, only the first is in line with Misplaced Pages policy and practice.

Reasons for including articles on non-notable topics

Ways of improving non-notable articles

An article on a non-notable subject can develop in various ways:

  1. Articles that lack quality can be tagged as such, or readers can judge for themselves that a page is not written with the same standards as other articles. A suggested fix is to specially mark articles of quality, and also articles without quality.
  2. Categories can be reorganized or further split off to form smaller more specific categories in which to place topics of differing degrees of fame.
  3. Articles on non-verifiable subjects, or topics that directly violate official policy leave themselves open to being deleted.

These solutions are proposed to fix any potential problems associated with having articles of varying quality and size on Misplaced Pages (this happens anyhow, notwithstanding non-notability). Articles on topics which "will be significant one day" may fall foul of "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball". The subject should be judged as it is known now outside Misplaced Pages, not the current or potential content. Some articles are said to be incapable of being written in a NPOV fashion - however that is simply another crystal-ball judgement on the integrity of future editors.

One exception is living people. These articles require careful handling, and articles which are uncomplimentary and hard to verify should be fixed or deleted as soon as possible.

Improve the article

Follow the suggestions in the {{Sofixit}} template, and be bold! Edit the article so that it establishes the importance of the subject. Let's say you come across this stub:
Eric Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea.
Verifiable, factual, neutral, but fails to make any assertion of importance. But we know there is more to it than that! How about expanding it to read:
Eric "The Eel" Moussambani is a swimmer from Equatorial Guinea who achieved worldwide fame after finishing in the slowest time ever recorded in the Men's 100m Freestyle finals at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Moussambani had never seen a 50m pool before the competition.
The subject now asserts importance! The problem is gone.

Merging

Information which is verifiable can be merged into a more major article, so as to make the information easier to find and manage (but not so as to give it undue weight). If merging the information would put undue weight on a main article; and the separating out of the information does not constitute a point of view fork; and it does not violate official policy or guidelines, then the information may be kept on its own page rather than merged. However, note also that though a minority view may be spelled out in great detail, to maintain our neutral point of view it should not be represented as the truth. Further, the separate page should refer back to the main article.

Userfying

Articles about garage bands whose lead singer matches the name of the user who created the article are a common occurrence on Misplaced Pages, and are frequent cases of non-notable content. These and similar instances can be moved to the user's space by any editor, and the remaining redirect can be tagged for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect. You can leave a polite notice such as {{nn-userfy}} to explain what you did, and why (and don't forget to {{Welcome}} them!).

Transwiki

Some information which has no place in an encyclopedia can find a happy home in a sister project such as wikibooks. However, most wikibook information not suitable for wikipedia can be condensed and summarized so that it is encyclopedic.

Tagging for cleanup

The {{Notability}} template is one of many standard templates which can be applied to an article which fails to establish the importance of its subject. See the cleanup resources page for more details of these.

Deleting

If an article cannot be merged or by nature of the subject conform to policy, then it can be deleted if sufficient consensus is reached, via Speedy deletion, Proposed deletion, or Articles for deletion. Now for an important caveat: This is a last resort and should only be used if the subject of the article is the problem, rather than the article's content. Indeed, it is most likely a failing of the article content if it fails to explain why the subject is notable, so always try to fix content before deleting a subject. If the subject so obscure that the article cannot be improved, then it is a candidate for speedy deletion and should be listed there after a reasonable amount of time per CSD-A1 or CSD-A3.

Misconceptions - Non-notability is not...

Non-notability is often assumed to be equivalent or related to one or more of the deficiencies listed in the following subsections. These are not allowed on Misplaced Pages for their own individual reasons, under specific policies or guidelines. When deciding an article's worthiness for Misplaced Pages, be sure the article is judged against these specific criteria, not against notability per se.

Non-verifiability

All information on Misplaced Pages must be written from an accessible and reliable source. While non-verifiable information is often not notable either (such as what I have in my pocket), in many cases non-notable information is verifiable. For example, Qubit Field Theory is a little known quantum theory but is certainly verifiable. Something is verifiable only if it can be substantiated from reliable sources that can be verified by wikipedians. It is not sufficient for an article to be simply theoretically verifiable. If the only source about something is its promoter and their press releases, it is not verifiable. Look for multiple non-trivial mentions in independent academic or mainstream publications: the article must be verifiable from reliable secondary sources.

"It isn't the lack of fame that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability."
– Jimbo Wales ("writing only as another user, not as The Jimbo")

Non-neutrality

Neutrality is non-negotiable. By extension we must not give undue weight to minor points of view. We must therefore be able to verify that a subject is covered neutrally. The section on undue weight notes however that minor points of view can be given as much attention as major points of view, in articles specifically devoted to those minor points of view.

An article may not include information that arbitrarily favors one side or another. However, point of view in non-notable articles (as in notable articles) is most often written by an editor who has knowledge or interest in the subject, and who may contribute intended or unintended bias. This is a fixable problem, and biased non-notable articles can just as easily be corrected as biased notable articles, provided that the subject has been covered widely enough that there is informed discussion available for reference.

Non-encyclopedic

In a paper encyclopedia, non-notable topics are not included for practical purposes. Misplaced Pages, however, is a very different model not confined by this limitation. As the word "encyclopedia" is defined by dictionaries, notability is not a requirement; The Star Trek Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, for instance. (Note that The Star Trek Encyclopedia differs from Misplaced Pages is several key ways, particularly in that it relies on one singular primary source and that it is in an in-universe style.) See also an essay section which argues against the claim that "Minor issues are not encyclopedic".

Original research

Non-notable articles may consist of large amounts of original research. However, this is definitely not always the case. Non-notable subjects are subject to the same scrutiny of original research as notable pages are. Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere this research, notable or not.

See also

Existing practice

Proposals

Essays

Category: