User talk:Dugwiki/Draft revision from Notability to Article Inclusion

What is the point of the name change?
I pretty much fail to see the point of this, if all you're doing is replacing one commonly used word by a more verbose and not particularly clearer phrase.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of reasons for the suggested name change. One is that it was recommended by a number of people on the WP:INCLUSION talk page as a way to eliminate the word "notability" which is a somewhat misleading term. (Yes, the guideline itself talks about the difference between notability and "fame", but there appear to be a number of editors in afd who don't get the difference.)


 * More importantly, though, this shifts the focus of the guideline from asking "is the topic notable" to "is the topic something worth including in Wikipedia?" After all, the bottom line question isn't really whether or not people are taking note of the topic and writing about it.  It's whether having an article about the topic in Wikipedia will serve our reader's best interests.  So in this proposal we are directly asking "will an article on this topic be something that serves our interest as an encyclopedia?"  And the answer to that question is that a topic is probably worth including if it meets the primary inclusion criteria (which is very similar to the primary notability criteria).


 * So while the difference in the actual criteria is fairly minor, how you arrive at the criteria and pose your questions and rationale are altered in a way that more directly addresses the actual practical bottom line question you really want to ask in the first place.


 * Of course, this is as I mentioned a VERY rough first draft attempt at that endeavor. Hopefully, though, that explains sort of the basic rationale behind the proposal.  Please feel free to critique the specifics, though, or let me know if you have other questions. Dugwiki 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "inclusion" is moreso a misleading term, in particular because "topics worth including" are regularly deleted on grounds of original research, copyvio, BLP, et cetera.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The same can be said about notable topics, though. There are plenty of articles about notable subjects that have been deleted due to copyvio and original research.  So neither term implies that other policies shouldn't be followed. Dugwiki 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the name change also, using slogans that people think they know what it means is so incredibly bad. Here are two real cases where I wish notability was renamed: Do you really expect people to read policy when they can rely on their own intuitive interpretations of the title?? --Merzul 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A certain Wikipedian has created an autobiography, but it's not the blatant sort of vanity spam thing, but provides many refs, and has an impressive CV, but not sufficient independent secondary sources for others to write a NPOV article about. Now, please go ahead and tell that editor he is not "notable" enough. In my view, he is notable, but there simply aren't enough 3rd party sources to write an article about him other than by relying on his own information. I prefer saying it doesn't satisfy WP's article inclusion criteria, rather than discussing his notability.
 * Another case, and here I might even give the link, the article Athorism. The editor creating the entry for this obvious neologism really believes this is "notable". And sure, why not, it is notable, Richard Dawkins uses this in his book and in one essay. That is indeed notable by my intuition too, but not according to the guidelines here.
 * Well, considering that "original research" need neither be research nor original - yes.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)