Wikipedia talk:Inherent notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Fundamentally misguided

This is fundamentally misguided. We should not be looking to invent our own arbitrary notability criteria. I don't see any rationale being given here- it's just a list of things the author apparently thinks are notable. Friday (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Note most of the article is just a summary of the individual articles on notability. The only thing new is the attempt to codify geography, which has always been in force, but unwritten. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There are clearly unsupported WP:POV issues and peacock terms in use in this essay as it stands. I add a bit to indicate that this is an ongoing argument and that it is NOT considered a standard that all users should follow. Jeepday (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please be kind enough to point of the Peacock terms and what is a violation of a WP:POV. You have added the tags, but give no context and give no indication of which sentences violate WP:POV. Adding a tag is easy, but its useless unless you can point out specific sentences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Friday. The only subjects areas that would achieve consensus as inherently notable are ones where there's never any controversy. For example, I think everyone could agree that heads of state are inherently notable, but there's never been any dispute about this. There's plenty of reliable, independent, non-trivial sources for these subjects. What this essay needs, at a minimum, is some reasoning for why these things would be considered inherently notable. I know that I'd contest that "All sports figures that play in at least one professional game" are notable. Every sport, every level, every country, every time period? Chaz Beckett 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Augustin O'Donnell played professional rugby for two years before succumbing to a kidney condition. You will find scant coverage of him in independent sources, his career having been cut short. Not notable, poor chap. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I know nothing of Augustin O'Donnell, so I'm not sure if he's a notable fellow or not. However, the notability of a specific person is far different than the concept of inherent notability of an entire subject area. Chaz Beckett 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, he's not notable. That was the point. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that minor league baseball players in the US are not inherently notable, even though they are fully professional. Dsmdgold 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't support this proposal. There is no topic that is "inherently notable". The fundamental rule is that a subject is notable if there are significant secondary sources. However, there are exceptions to the notable rule eg. WP:BIO and the like. If a topic is "inherently notable", then it should become the subject of a clearly worded exception guideline. Otherwise AfD debates are always going to invoke inherent notability, which is something that is very subjective, not objective. I agree that it is about time that an exception guideline for schools and geography should be codified, but that is something different to "inherent notability" which doesn't assist editors in creating articles. Assize 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with policy

This opening paragraph is logically flawed and is counter to wiki policy.

Certain topics have inherent notability that is recognized by Wikipedia, the most common example is in geography, where all towns and cities have articles. The articles exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", some are just outputed census data. Consensus for other categories of Inherent notability has not been reached.

1. That "Certain topics have inherent notability that is recognized by Wikipedia" is an untrue statement. There is no policy or guideline or formalized consensus for this statement.

2. That "the most common example is in geography, where all towns and cities have articles" is an untrue statement. Many towns and cities do have articles, "Many" is not "all".

3. That "The articles exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works" does not provide Inherent notability. If that was true then subject of every article that exists would be subject to inherent notability and not just certain topics. Per the core content policy Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

4. That "some are just outputed census data" is true. Example Ghorabandha but these articles are still subject to the core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They should have references listed and be verifiable to meet policy

5. This statement "Consensus for other categories of Inherent notability has not been reached" implies that consensus for inherent notability has been reached for some categories. This is an untrue statement, if consensus had been reached there would be a policy Wikipedia:Inherent notability, there is not a such a policy.

Summary - The only true statement in this opening paragraph is "articles exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works" which says that article exist that are counter to Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. We established in item 3 that existence of an article does not provide inherent notability, if it did then no article would reach consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for lack of notability. I have placed the {{Disputeabout}} on this essay for the reasons above. Jeepday (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Response If this is a policy proposal, then it doesn't matter whether or not the opening paragraph is counter to Wikipedia policy -- it is meant to replace part of Wikipedia policy.
1. WP:OUTCOMES shows that even without certain policies, it is accepted practice that, for instance, locality articles are not deleted. That type of article has inherent notability.
2. So what if it's "many" or "all"? I don't know, but I strongly suspect it's "all". The real point is that no one deletes locality articles. Because they're inherently notable.
3. & 5. See my response to #2 just above.
Response to "Summary": WP:V can be met as long as even a single reliable source is cited. WP:N requires multiple sourcing, so we can have a slew of single-source articles that are not at all in conflict with WP:V. Noroton 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The wording changes and mention of WP:V do much to address my major concerns. I might suggest that words different then "right to exist" and "entitled to". A quick review of the parent (Wikipedia:Notability) only use "right" as opposed to "left". Also Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline not a policy so presumably if Wikipedia:Inherent notability is accepted it would be a guideline not a policy. Guidelines are "generally accepted among editors" and I am not aware of any that are in direct conflict with a policy. All in all this is looking much better, you might want to find a couple of good AFD's to use as references or examples for the conclusions. 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs)
I agree that the proposal would be improved if language about "right to exist" and "entitled to" were replaced or removed. What policies does this proposal conflict with? Noroton 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (fix wording Noroton 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
I think the recent changes that acknowledge WP:V and WP:CITE address my concerns about policy conflict. Making the language a little softer and more in line with WP:N A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below would read something like A subject is presumed to be inherent notable if it falls into one of the categories in the guideline below here. Guidelines are softer than policies as they are meant to guide not to direct. Jeepday (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A justification for inherent notability

If we can reasonably conclude that some type of subject is always and everywhere the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, then we don't advance the purposes of the encyclopedia by deleting these types of articles, as long as they meet other Wikipedia requirements.

It strains credulity to think that any public secondary school (a/k/a high school), anywhere, has not been the subject of substantial coverage by at least a local newspaper. Nearly all private secondary schools also receive substantial coverage. When a high school is built, it is always notable enough for some local, independent, reliable news organization to publish a news article about. Then more coverage follows. It is unreasonable to believe that this coverage does not exist. Therefore, deleting articles on high schools only means that the work of creating a new high school article will have to be repeated later. Editors may be discouraged if they find a deleted article on the same subject means they have more obstacles to overcome to create the new article. For the good of Wikipedia, we should recognize that all high schools are inherently notable, just as we already do with notability articles.

The same argument can be made for other classes of subjects, such as critical-care hospitals.

Articles will still need to be reliably sourced, but a school Web site, for instance, is reliable, even if it isn't independent. If we wind up with information only from "trivial" mentions in sources and from the subject of the article (say, the high school), that should be sufficient until independent sources eventually are found.

One reason, it seems, why we have WP:N is to make sure that articles aren't kept that no one would really care about. But someone always cares about a high school or a hospitals. Neither of these types of organizations tends to be unreliable in putting up information about itself on its Web site or in its literature (at least not the public high schools and hospitals). I don't see any horrible result for Wikipedia if we start recognizing that these types of organizations should have articles as a matter of course. Noroton 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected

This has been discussed and attracted little notice other than objection, except from the original author. It meet the criteria for rejection. --Kevin Murray 00:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • You can't reject an essay. You just ignore it or edit it. Hiding T 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It should be moved to user space as its been written almost entirely by one editor and not accepted at all. Chaz Beckett 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • We don't userfy essays on that basis. Essays are just that, essays. Either edit it or ignore it. When we need the server space the devs will let us know. Wikipedia has a long tradition of allowing users to write essays in the Wikipedia space. Hiding T 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course we move things to proper place. See WP:ESSAY, where it says "Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author.". Server space is irrelevant as the essay will still exist and isn't being deleted. See Category:User essays for many other examples. Chaz Beckett 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Okay, I'll edit it then. Hiding T 19:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)