Wikipedia:Inherent notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Contents

[edit] Definition

Inherent notability is the idea that certain subjects on Wikipedia have a right to exist in the main Wikipedia article space; however, it is accepted all data within the articles must be verified and referenced. The contrasting view argues that nothing is inherently notable; either there's enough material out there for an article beyond a permastub or there is not.

The concept was first put into use when the list of "census designated places" was uploaded into Wikipedia main article space. Every geographic area used by the census bureau in the United States now had an article in Wikipedia whether or not they were the subject of "non-trivial coverage by multiple-sources".

[edit] Arguments for

Common examples tend to be found in geography based subjects, where all buildings, schools, towns and cities are considered by some on Wikipedia to be entitled to articles. This belief is fostered by the fact that schools, buildings, towns and cities are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their own way. It is asserted that the articles have a right to exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", as the articles can be sourced to publically available data, for example census data.

In the case of schools, the argument is that they play a dominant part in a person's formative years. They are generally fixed in location, and often have long histories. They are likely each to attract substantial communities of interest to Wikipedia. An average US high school, for example, may have been founded in 1970, with an average class size of 1,000 people. It may serve a city of 70,000, each citizen likely to know it. It may be known across the entire US state, and well-known by adjacent towns, such that perhaps at least 350,000 people know of it and have reason to search for it. 350,000 potential searchers is good enough, arguably, to establish inherent notability.

[edit] Arguments against

If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it, then we as Wikipedians have proof that it is notable; if no one has written about a topic, then notability may be difficult to gauge. We can argue that X or Y are notable or non-notable all, but the only evidence we can present to buttress our arguments is the presence or absence of reliable sources.

Unfortunately, too often this definition of notability is misused.

  1. I like it. An article is unsourced and efforts to produce sources have ended in failure, yet people argue that the subject is "inherently notable". Putting aside the bigger problem of having a possibly unverifiable (i.e., original research) article, the claim of "inherent notability" is subjective and cannot be proven.
  2. Unresearched. An article about a subject has no sources, so people claim that "the subject is not notable". That's a fallacy! The problem is not notability, but lack of verification. Only after one has searched for sources and failed to find any can one suggest: "the subject does not seem to be notable". We can prove that a subject is notable, but we cannot prove the converse; we can only note that no proof was found to establish notability.
  3. I don't like it. An article about a subject is sourced with reliable sources, yet people argue for deletion based on the notion that the subject is "inherently not notable". This is no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and/or WP:IDONTKNOWIT and is subject to the same criticisms applicable to the first class of misuse.

Whether some topics are or are not inherently notable is, on Wikipedia, irrelevant. The standard way of demonstrating notability involves showing that others have deemed it worthy of being written about. Sources themselves do not establish notability, but they prove notability.

Wikipedians recognize that certain topics have inherent notability. This gives them a right to exist in the main Wikipedia article space. The most common example is in geography, where all towns and cities are entitled to articles. The articles have a right to exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", as some of the articles are just outputed census data. Nevertheless, all data within the articles must be verified and referenced.

[edit] Inherent Wikipedia-style notability

Some sorts of articles will, by definition, meet Wikipedia's basic notability standard of non-trivial coverage by multiple-sources and long-term importance. For example, in the United States, places listed on the National Register of Historic Places will inherently meet this standard, as inclusion on that list requires third-party, published documentation of a place's importance, and all NRHP listings, with detailed information on the listed place, are published. Thus, any place listed on the register will inherently have enough sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines.

[edit] See also

Some topics have their own thresholds of notability that differ from "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works":