User:Jersyko/On notability
It is also a *very* rough draft and contains some relatively unsupported assertions (both normative and descriptive), but I hope to improve it eventually. Please let me know if you have any ideas. |
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and strives to become the sum of all human knowledge. Quite simply, these goals conflict at times. It is Wikipedia's verifiability, no original research, and "What Wikipedia is Not" policies working in conjuction with the reliable sources guideline, however, that prevent Wikipedia from becoming a directory.
Most relevant is the verifiability policy, which states in part, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." The reliable sources guideline, referenced throughout the policy text, is critical to the verifiability policy (as well as the no original research policy).
Wikipedia's four general content policies (verifiability, no original research, "What Wikipedia is Not", and neutral point of view) effectively operate to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a phone directory, a database of all existing people, or a web directory. Our content policies are not so defective as to necessitate the adoption of detailed notability criteria, primary or secondary.
The problem with notability
[edit]Uncle G defines the primary "notability" criterion as, "An article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself."
Though I would quibble with the use of "non-trivial" (is this a reference to the reliable sources guideline?), "multiple", and "separate" (if the subject of an article has been written about six times in the New York Times, would it be excluded?), this is not necessarily a bad idea. It is, however, redundant to some degree and is ripe for abuse.
One common argument in favor of the adoption of these notability standards is that Wikipedia could become a business directory because articles could be written about businesses referencing only their Yellow Pages listing. Arguably, these articles would adhere to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR (it is also arguable that the phone book is a reliable source). The solution, then, is notability, which will prevent such articles from being created.
Of course, such articles have no place on Wikipedia. Critically, however, WP:NOT states that "Wikipedia is not a directory." Thus, such articles should be deleted per this policy. The same can be said of arguments in favor of notability that take the "registry of domain names" or "database of persons" track. In these cases, notability provides a redundant reason for deletion.
Notability is sometimes cited at AFD as a primary reason for deletion of an article that should actually be deleted per WP:V or WP:NOT. Deletion should always rest on policy where possible.
Notability has gone beyond Uncle G's essay, however. It has been used by some to justify deleting articles about political candidates for major political parties in elections to a national office when multiple reliable sources about the article's subject are available (see, e.g., this) simply because they are "non-notable" as political candidates. Thus, notability is not only redundant in many cases, but it is also ripe for abuse.
Conclusions
[edit]Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based on Wikipedia policy.
Notability is overused as a ground for deletion.
Post script
[edit]If notability concerns are the only justification for deletion of an article, the article should not be deleted. I support this conclusion, but I think this is less likely to be consensus-supported than the other two.