User:Lagrange613/Coverage is not notability

Coverage is not notability. Coverage is notedness. This has some bearing on assessing notability, but it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition. We need to elevate our discussions around notability so that we are engaging the core points rather than deferring to authority.

The most widely cited and most widely misunderstood piece of Wikitext
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Most of the time the focus is on the general notability guideline's first clause and its three key words: "significant", "reliable", and "independent". But there's a second clause, and it has but one key word: "presumed". The GNG is often (mis)used in deletion discussions as a necessary or sufficient condition for notability, when in one little word the GNG itself announces that it is not to be used in that way.

Why does it do this? For one thing, the GNG is exactly what it says it is: a general guideline. No general guideline can be dispositive in every situation, and the GNG acknowledges that. More importantly, though, the GNG acknowledges the limits of coverage in assessing notability. Coverage does not confer notability. It confirms notability. Aware of its own limitations and the limitations of coverage, the GNG claims insight, not authority. It doesn't tell you what to think about notability; it suggests how you should think about notability. It's where you should start, not where you should end.

Coverage and notability are not subsets
Coverage does not always imply notability. At least monthly the news media in the United States fixate on some "human interest" story at the expense of notable topics. It receives significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of it, but that makes it noted rather than notable. This is why we have, for example, subject guidelines like WP:EVENTS that are much stricter than the GNG.

At the same time, lack of coverage does not always imply lack of notability. Other guidelines like WP:BIO essentially adopt the GNG as a sufficient condition for notability in their areas and then suggest other ways to prove a subject is notable in the absence of GNG-level coverage.

Thus, while coverage and notability often go together, neither implies the other.

If notability is not coverage, then what is it?
Good question. I haven't decided, and I don't think Wikipedia has, either. Ten years ago the understanding of notability on Wikipedia was different than it is now. Like many of Wikipedia's core notions it has stabilized as the project has matured, but I suspect in another ten years it will be different again. It will probably be more inlcusionist in some respects and more deletionist in others. Perhaps we'll have an entirely new way of thinking about it that makes the inclusionism–deletionism dichotomy feel antiquated.

In the meantime, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard when assessing notability. It requires more than checking three boxes and writing 200 bytes. No more "Keep; passes GNG" or "Delete; fails GNG". These should be listed in WP:Arguments to avoid. They evidence only the slightest bit more work, and no more actual thought, than "Keep; notable" and "Delete; not notable". They're also a much bigger appeal (and thus deference) to authority than most Wikipedians probably realize or would be comfortable with if they did.

Referencing the GNG in notability discussions makes sense, of course. But when that happens it needs to be a part of a complete statement that engages with the core concepts and advances the level of discourse, rather than a substitute for it. When you write about notability, write notably.