Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notability in Wikipedia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This clearly isn't being deleted here. There are some decent arguments to merge, but they are clearly chiefly arguments to retain the bulk of this article and transplant it to some other. Feel free to open an appropriate merge discussion if you'd like to pursue that further. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This article is attracting a lot of undue attention, have clarified the result. Ottre 12:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability in Wikipedia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, whilst this is notable to the average wikipedian, we avoid self references. So we'd need great sources to show that this topic was really a topic, and not just an aspect of wikipedia, best dealt with in that article. We have no such sources. The writers of this have tried hard, but just about every second sentence requires a {fact} tag, and the obnly obvious source would be a wikipedia page. Sure, some sources discuss this but as someone has already noted on the talk page: we don't have articles on ""reporting standards for CBS News" or "editorial inclusion policies of the Wall Street Journal"" despite the fact that we could find commentary on these issues. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doc has it right. Anything useful here would be better off merged into the main Wikipedia article.  So, delete and/or redirect.  Friday (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * aye → Aza Toth 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I know we have The Economist editorial stance and there may be others. The article has only just been born and there is plenty of academic work on Wikipedia, probably on notability too. I can't believe that I'm having to argue that Wikipedia's concept of notability is notable! This is 2009, not 2001; we just killed Encarta... And may I say that it's uncharitable at best to argue for deletion on grounds that it's not notable (when there are sources showing some notability, and the article is less than 24 hours old) and on grounds that better sources aren't findable (when there is plenty of academic work on Wikipedia which covers it I'm sure. WP:BEFORE.). Rd232 talk 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What are your talking about? The article, The battle for Wikipedia's soul from The Economist? Ikip (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind, I figured it out. Ikip (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the excellent nomination rationale. Coverage of in reliable sources seems to be sparse and generally done as part of an article about Wikipedia more generally - the discussion of notability should probably also be done as part of another article. There are already a few sentences about this in Wikipedia and that's all that's really warranted by the low level of specific coverage; this article seems to be excessive navel-gazing. ~ mazca  t 17:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I submit that our navel is not uninteresting. Rd232 talk 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I beg to disagree. The navel is one of the more interesting parts of the human anatomy, being the only visible reminder of our former physical attachment to another human being. But navel gazing is being lost in a state of self-absorption. One article on a problematic and central issue of encyclopaedic taxonomy does not make us omphaloskeptics. This is navel glance, and surely an important one.--Moloch09 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once written, there wont be much need to keep gazing at it. Except by people who want to understand the concept. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced most of those sources represent an actual discussion of notability in Wikipedia, most of them seem to be more general and happen to mention it. But it seems many people think this can be expanded and sourced properly, and improvement seems to be underway already - I'm happy to retract my "delete" opinion given how many reasonable editors seem to think it can be improved; though the article does give me something of a bad taste of our own self-importance. Cheers for the source link, anyway! ~ mazca  t 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how obscure a topic is, or how uninteresting (to you) it is. If it is encyclopedic, verifiable, notable, and there is enough material to expand it beyond a stub, it deserves an article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, was this reply intended for me? My comment mentioned neither the interestingness nor the obscurity of the topic, merely the appearance of a lack of substantial sources. ~  mazca  t 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was aimed at my interpretation of your "navel-gazing" comment. I apologize if it was off-target. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If any other on-line encyclopaedia of the size and reach of Wikipedia had the kind of deletion debates Wikipedia has, based on a weird notion of notability, there would be an article about it on Wikipedia. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give any evidence for that assumption?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Can you to the contrary? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Wikipedia is sui generis, therefore your argument by analogy makes no sense whatsoever.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Still !voting keep. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you don't want to discuss it, but this isn't a vote.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Rephrasing: Keep per David Gerard -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (and possibly redirect to WP:Notability). The only information that features in this article and wouldn't appear on WP:N is the "controversy" section which only serves as a way for people who are upset at missing the inclusion criteria to complain about it. If people want to know about Wikipedia's notability policy, it's there for them to read. Perhaps a redirect here would help direct people's curiosity. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel I should point out, actually, than I'm not against an article entitled Notability as some sort of discussion about what notability is and how it can be measured in a wider perspective. My sole problem with this article is its duplicity of WP:N. Greg Tyler (t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An article on Notability as an independent concept is probably also warranted. This is an encyclopedic article about the editorial stance/inclusion policy of the world's largest encyclopedia and is backed up by independent reliable sources. How can you make an argument that is should go? If Encyclopedia Britannica wrote an article on it, it would also probably duplicate some material from our actual notability guidelines. Where is the problem? —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Soctt really does have the SELFREF point correct, and actually I wondered why this did not have an essay tag on it to begin with. I'd be perfectly fine with it being "userfied" (is that even a word, or perhaps the next in a new series of articles?).  Even the Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia article which seems so popular among our readers, really does fly in the face of the whole self-ref guideline.  Unless we're going to establish a new "wikispeak" category, I think this is better left in user-space, or placed in our Essay Catagory. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how: Self-references to avoid. Rd232 talk 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Has been commented on by numerous external observers. Fred Talk 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - self referencing that gives a bad taste. DGtal (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I must point out that the avoid self referencing guideline asks us not to refer to "Wikipedia" in article unrelated to wikipedia. For example an article on Apples shouldn't start out with "This Wikipedia article is about apples...". Avoiding self-references has nothing to do with having articles about Wikipedia, which are most certainly allowed. Read WP:SELF. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Imagine for a moment, that instead of "notability", we were discussing unnamed article X. I can't imagine that article X would be deleted if it included multiple references to reliable sources, including the Wall Street Journal, Slate, and the NY Review of Books. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  18:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * + now 3 academic refs and the Washington Post. Rd232 talk 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, that isn't the point here. The sources are fine, it's just that I don't see the subject matter as a wise idea. It's merely rewriting the policy but allowing for opinions to creep in. <b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b> <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 18:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be (and I think isn't, but the article having <24 hrs to develop it's hard to say) a rewriting of policy. It should be an explanation of its significance (1 academic source) and of its genesis (1 academic source) as well noting media coverage of it (4 sources). Isn't that enough to distinguish it from a summary of current policy? It would be slightly ironic for Wikipedia to apply a higher notability standard to an article about Notability in Wikipedia merely because it's about Wikipedia. Rd232 talk 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I fear - we are a top 10 website, and the clash between the Wikipedia jargon sense of the word "notability" and the conventional English-language sense of the term is a frequent topic in third-party coverage of us. The self-reference aspect means it obviously needs careful consideration, but, bluntly, we're a top-10 website, we're mainstream famous by any measure and this is an aspect of Wikipedia that people go "wtf?" at. All the article on Citation needed needs for mainspace is enough mentions in serious third-party discussion and not just geek culture ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, much per Tnxman307 and David Gerard. Discounting the fact that the article is about an aspect of Wikipedia, it includes multiple reliable sources and seems to be the subject of discussion outside of this project (it has even been a reason for other projects to be created). A distaste for self-reference is not a reason for deletion. -- auburn pilot  talk  18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Per Tnxman307 and David Gerard. It is well covered by outside reliable sources, so definitely notable, leaving no grounds for deletion. --Falcorian (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The appropriate place to discuss what wikipedia means by notability is WP:N.  I see this as potentially confusing a great many new editors who think that this article is the guideline they should be looking for, and we run the risk of having this page and the notability guideline itself be out of sync. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but do you think this could be addressed by the hatnote at the top of the page? There is a currently a link to the policy page, which could always be made bolder/more attention-grabbing. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the hatnote will help with the navigation much, and if we have to go to any extraordinary measures to differentiate the two then we have a bigger problem. In general, I have a problem with mainspace articles on wikipedia policies/guidelines.  It's another place to extend the battleground over some of this, and, if the sources don't keep up with changes to the policy/guideline, we end up with out-of-sync information that is going to royally confuse new editors. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the appropriate place for us (Wikipedians) to discuss our (Wikipedia's) notability guidelines is WP:N. The correct place for Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) to have an article discussing X publication's (Wikipedia's) editorial standards/notability guidelines/inclusion criteria is Notability in Wikipedia. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, since there are numerous secondary, reliable sources that cover the topic. Any concerns such as potential confusion and inaccuracy shoul be dealt with via editing, not deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia's concept of "notability" is in itself a notable topic for an encyclopedia article, as demonstrated by the multiple, secondary reliable sources in the article. The self-referencing argument doesn't stand. Read WAWI, and note that articles about Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia, are acceptable, and only have to meet our notability/encyclopedicness guidelines for inclusion. The argument that we don't have articles on ""reporting standards for CBS News" or "editorial inclusion policies of the Wall Street Journal"" is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and can be discarded as such, or can be countered with the fact that we do have articles on the editorial policies of certain publications, such as The Economist editorial stance.  The nominator needs a trout slap and a reminder of WP:BEFORE, since if there isn't enough material here for a stand-alone article, it should be merged and redirected to Wikipedia. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP well referenced article along the lines of Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia many more articles could be added to this article to. Ikip (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic has been discussed in reliable third party sources. --Bill (talk 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Navel-gazing at its worst. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not excessive focus on ourselves (navel-gazing), it's encyclopedic treatment of a topic that independent, secondary sources first decided was notable. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 00:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: to be accurate, navel gazing of even the mildest kind is technically an absorption in self. A few articles among a million hardly constitutes the worst kind. --Moloch09 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as Wkipedia's ever-changing definition of WP:N is covered (usually disparagingly) in numerous reliable sources. It meets wiki's own inclusion guidelines as an article, and lends itself brilliantly to explaining the ins and outs and controversies of WP:N to the unschooled, thus informing and educating the reader. It is itself not a guideline or policy, but simply an article covering a guideline that is itself often in the press. POINT: The article about Notability is NOT intended so much for Wikipedians (we have the policies and guidelines themselves), but is rather for the uninitiated to increase their understanding of the subject. Nice article... and kudos to all who have worked to improve it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Wikipedia or the inclusionism/deletionism article (which the controversy section is redundant to) per Doc and Friday. I find much of the article be rather WP:OR-y, especially the lead section. The sentence "Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to openly discuss criteria for inclusion." is misleading. Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to discuss anything openly; inclusion criteria are not special here. I don't see why the focus of this article is on notability when most of the content and many of the sources could easily apply to Wikipedia as a whole, which we already have an article on. Mr.Z-man 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there are by now enough sources. I agree we do not want to go too far in self-reference, but this particular article is reasonable. DGG (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Navel gazing.  There are enough other spaces to discuss this, it doesn't belong in article space.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not excessive focus on ourselves (navel-gazing), it's encyclopedic treatment of a topic that independent, secondary sources first decided was notable. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 00:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's notable. ;) It's notable because the debate has been going on for so long, and so heatedly, and has affected so many articles that it has received coverage in multiple articles and sources. It's not perfect - I just killed some POV, and we could use more positive criticism to balance out the negative criticism - but deleting this one just seems like "making it go away" rather than covering a worthwhile topic, even if some may find it embarassing or inconvenient. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The worst kind of self reference and navel gazing. This article is ridiculously recursive. What is notable is not that we have a notability policy, but that it has been debated publicly by the press and other sources. Since, according to the third party source coverage, it's the debate and not the concept itself that is notable, this should all be covered in History of Wikipedia. Steven Walling (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) This is not a self-reference. The avoid self referencing guideline asks us not to refer to "Wikipedia" in articles unrelated to wikipedia. For example an article on Apples shouldn't start out with "This Wikipedia article is about apples...". Avoiding self-references has nothing to do with having articles about Wikipedia, which are most certainly allowed. Read WP:SELF. (2) This is not excessive focus on ourselves (navel-gazing), it's encyclopedic treatment of a topic that independent, secondary sources first decided was notable. (3) I don't think you can really separate the debate about Wikipedia's notability from Wikipedia's notability. But if that is the case, then the article can be renamed (maybe Controversy over Wikipedia's notability guidelines?), but merging to the history article is not really appropriate, since there is already too much material to fit in the history article.  By the way, you !voted "delete", but at the end of you comment you suggest it be merged with History of Wikipedia since the "debate" is notable. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Berating every single person who thinks the article is self-referential and navel gazing doesn't make it not so. Clearly an article about our own policy, even if encyclopedic in tone, is referring to ourselves. That is the dictionary definition of both those things. And yes, you can easily separate a discussion of the debate about something from a discussion of something. Case in point: Foie gras and Foie gras controversy. Steven Walling (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Linguist's repeated need to debate every comment that he disagrees with is verging on disruptive.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help if people stopped referring to WP:SELF (which qua policy has no relevance I can see; though the shortcut has a certain argumentative value). It would also help if people stopped referring to navelgazing as if it was an argument relevant to deletion (cf WP:IDONTLIKEIT). It isn't. Ironically enough, see Notability for what is. Rd232 talk 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAWI seems more relevant than WP:SELF. BOZ (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Steven Walling, @Who then was a gentleman? - I apologize that my comments were perceived as "berating" and "disruptive". I will assume the assumption of good faith on your part. In way of explanation, I was only trying to point out how certain arguments are not based on Wikipedia guidelines and policy. I choose to reply individually because in large discussions things can get quite disjointed. —<b style="border:1px solid #C5BE83;background-color:#F5DEB3;font-size:0.9em;"> LinguistAtLarge • Talk </b> 02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject is sourced with a suitable amount of references. There could be many more added in my opinion.  Besides the general notability of this subject, I believe that it's very important that this article be well maintained as I believe many sources outside of Wikipedia will find this page.  It also important that this page not simply reflect the WP:N as there would be no reason for it.  I believe that it shouldn't just explain the rules of notability because one article never could.  It should give a simple definition (which it does) and then cover the controversy covered by outside sources on the subject.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't buy the selfref or navel-gaze arguments (would anyone lobby for the deletion of Wikipedia?) and so we're left with judging the coverage of the subject of this article, Wikipedia's notability standards, in reliable sources. While reasonable people can disagree, I haven't seen anyone argue that the topic of this article is not notable and I believe that the topic is notable based on reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A pretty well-referenced article. Self-references are things like "see the Wikipedia article on..." or "edit this page" or "this website". This is an encyclopedia article, perfectly acceptable per WP:WAWI as long as it meets the same criteria as other articles, which I think that this does. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources indicate the presence of a legitimate off-Wiki discussion and coverage of this topic --Ryan Delaney talk 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. My default for all notability-related AfDs as notability is strongly biased and often abused rule on Wikipedia. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: As per Ryan Delaney, this is discussed off-wiki and thus is a notable topic; and, as per millosh, "keep" is pretty much my default for all notability-related AfDs due to notability being often abused at Wikipedia; also because bandwidth is cheap. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep: Has anyone else read Nicholson Baker's essay on why card catalogues are themselves reference works, found in Size of Thoughts? 75.87.174.58 (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC) — 75.87.174.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Notability doesn't actually exist. The article is actually talking about verifiability and editorial control. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Editorial control in respect of whether articles are included in Wikipedia or not is now handled via the concept of Notability. This involves talking about Verifiability too since we don't accept unsupported claims. By the way, you could try stubbing your toe on this. Rd232 talk 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we quote you on that one? ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now seems to be a well sourced and notable article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The talk page lists 10 RS that cover this topic. That is more than suffient for any article.  Also, WP:SELFREF is about not mentioning Wikipedia in articles unrelated to Wikipedia and not using it as source.  It does not mean articles can't be written about Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, a fairly important aspect of Wikipedia. However, I think the longer Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia should be merged into this article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea, but would require renaming, maybe to Inclusion in Wikipedia. That might be a good idea too. Rd232 talk 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the two could be merged to Inclusion standards of Wikipedia, Wikipedia inclusion standards or something like that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per IAR — Ched : ?  18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Merge into Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Not distinct enough to merit a separate article.  Durova Charge! 18:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the wider topic of Inclusion in Wikipedia be a better target? Rd232 talk 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is about more than just Inclusion, though. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Rd232 talk 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I've always seen it, inclusionism and deletionism is more about an editors interpretation of notability guidelines (where the line is drawn) while this article should be more about the whole spectrum of notability and not just where the line is drawn. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm thinking. I'd like to see more positive reaction to the notability guidelines, because all the negative controversy stuff is really tilting the POV balance in a bad way. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles do not exist to garner positive or negative reactions to topics. They're neutral educational works backed strongly by verification in reliable sources. Anything else is not acceptable. Steven Walling (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing... What I meant to say is that I'd like to see the article include documentation of any already existing published positive reactions to the notability guidelines, because it currently only includes documentation of negative controversy which is tilting the POV balance in a bad way. BOZ (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - as separate article from Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, a fundamentaly different topic. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * strong keep accessibility to knowledge is one of the key principles of wikipedia, and yet it took many weeks of rooting around for me to understand the resonance and contentious issues surrounding the concept of notability. Some of these wikiphilosophies are percolating into other disciplines, and even if they weren't, one of the major tenets of a top ten site seems to be intrinsically notable in itself. --Moloch09 (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Symbol merge vote.svg with Deletionism and inclusionism on Wikipedia and various subsections about notability and standards from other pages to form . There is important information here, but please not article.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as well sourced and a notable topic. I'd editorially push for a merge to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia as a good organizational practice, but I think this article meets our inclusion guidelines and I don't think AfD should be used to merge articles that meet our guidelines: let the talk pages serve that role. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs a big rewrite. It would be an okay sub-article of Wikipedia. I see this article was created by Rd232 on April 26, 2009 in their userspace at User:Rd232/Notability and then moved to notability on April 27, 2009 by Oren0 per some AN discussion (this one I assume (oldid)). Then the article was renamed Notability in Wikipedia on April 27 by Radiant chains. I think Wikipedia should have an article about the topic of notability, but Wikipedia should probably also have an article about this particular topic (although I think we should have an article about notability before notability in Wikipedia and notability should absolutely not redirect to this article).  This topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For example, (thank you to Ikip for finding these): The New York Review of Books, Slate , The Washington Post (via Slate) , Computerworld , The Daily Telegraph , and the Los Angeles Times  (and the Google Scholar results Rd232 mentioned). I'm just afraid this article will turn into a battleground. --Pixelface (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this topic/article passed the notability threshold a long time ago. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — Per John, per The Economist et al. And per Pixelface, DGG, David Gerard ;) Would not oppose Durova's merge proposal as that's just another way of structuring the subject matter. Article will warrant watching for neutrality. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per jack Merridew et al. Notable, reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm... Jack Merridew !voted keep. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! And probably for the first time in my life, I'd like to say Keep per Jack Merridew. :) (I think Bearian meant Keep?) BOZ (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Deletionism and inclusionism on Wikipedia per other opinions advising Merge. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, do not merge' Notable subject as per so many fine arguments above. I don't buy the "navel gazing" arguments either. Though related to the other subject, they are separate and require separate articles. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  02:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, wikipedia contributers know first-hand of a the diffuculty of making an article notable. Canadian (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this is one place for information from outside WP on its continually evolving virtues, vices, and value. -MBHiii (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.