User:Esquivalience/Essay on notability

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; a project to compile the sum of human knowledge.

We, in 14 years, have created the largest encyclopedia that has ever been created. Built from the creative thought and compilation of millions of editors, Wikipedia is just massive.

However, there is a drawback. While Wikipedia wishes to compile the sum of human knowledge, there are simply not enough editors to write and manage every topic in the world. Think about it. If, by magic or miracle, an article on every person in the world was created, would our 121,692 active editors be able to manage all that?

The previous example is overkill, but we need to focus our editing resources on topics that are important to cover. Our standard and method of gauging importance is notability.

Notability, as a word, doesn't say much. People have different interpretations of notability; while some may regard a specific topic notable, others will not.

In order to reduce subjectivity, Wikipedia relies on coverage from the outside world to separate important and unimportant topics. Generally, if an article has been covered, not just mentioned, by multiple (several preferred) reliable independent sources, then it can be presumed to have been noticed and deemed important to cover by the outside world, thus providing a strong reason for Wikipedia to cover it.

Why we need a inclusion criterion

As said above, Wikipedia has limited editing resources. Wikipedia is not paper, but it also doesn't contain infinitely many editors. Including articles on every topic that exists is unsustainable.

Additionally, all articles need to be verifiable, citing a reliable source for statements that are challenged, likely to be challenged, and especially controversial statements made about living persons, without resorting to original research; and neutral, taking into account all significant viewpoints and covering them according to their weight.

How notability addresses the above needs

Notability is a clever and simple solution because it addresses both of the above needs. Basing it on outside coverage ensures that topics have received attention from the outside world and curbs original research and naive judgements on viewpoints by ensuring editors have reliable research material to synthesize from.

But...

Outside coverage can either be too discriminate or indiscriminate. Notability is actually a lax standard on Wikipedia, and several or even a few sources are enough reason to keep the article.

Some topics, such as scientific (also see paywall) and niche topics, are either ignored and usually, very few sources exist for even relatively important topics; and other topics such as gossip, celebrities, and politics, even relatively unimportant, are near-indiscriminately covered by tabloids and the mainstream media. Historical topics, while not ignored, can be the subject of very obscure or inaccessible sources. It is not unreasonable to lower the bar for undercovered topics and vice versa.

The time frame of coverage could help in deciding the effect of coverage on a topic's notability. A short burst of coverage could indicate that the topic has been the subject of indiscriminate attention; long-term coverage likely indicates that sources earnestly deem it important to cover and are not just looking to fill their quota.

It is important to consider sources that may exist and whether bombardment with coverage or scant attention may nonetheless indicate notability per the above (or the lack thereof). If a topic may have sources that are not discovered yet by editors, wait before nomination; try to find sources yourself.

Notability should not always mean inclusion

See also: WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB

In general, most notable topics can be covered in its own standalone article.

However, it is pertinent to consider other factors. Notability is only one factor in deciding whether an article should be included or not. Perhaps a topic would benefit from the context from another article. Perhaps an article will remain a nearly-useless compilation of prose and thus should be covered in another manner. Regardless of notability, if a topic is better covered as part of an article, merging or redirecting is appropriate.

Below is a short comparison of articles and individual sections covering topics. Note that it is perfectly acceptable to have both on a topic as a compromise or to benefit from the advantages, but both of their advantages may be diluted.

Advantages of articles over sections

• They can accommodate more prose than sections.
• Readers can more easily navigate to them.