Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Notability changes

This is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Wikipedia articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles.

'''Since policy and guidelines are DEscriptive rather than PREscriptive, there is no need to discuss it further. Deletions for lack of notability happen frequently. Hence, policy and guidelines reflect that practice.'''

Proposal
Specifically, this proposal is to add text to the following pages:

A) to What Wikipedia is not:


 * {| border="1" style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black"

Although there is debate about just what makes a subject notable, there is a consensus that a subject must be in some way significant, important, or notable to someone for it to be a proper subject of an encyclopedic article. Articles on completely trivial subjects, even if accurate and verifiable, are not appropriate.
 * Wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable subjects
 * Wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable subjects
 * }

B) to Deletion policy


 * {| border="1" style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black"

!Problem with page

!Solution !Add this tag
 * Is about a non-notable subject (see WP:NOT)
 * List on Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)
 * }
 * }
 * }

(Note: this actually adds text only to the one cell in the first column of the existing table, the headers and the cells in the other columns are to make it clear exactly where the text is to be added.)

C) in Notability


 * {| border="1" style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black"


 * Replace It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria
 * with Notability is generally deemed an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT), as it is one aspect of the requirement that an article be encyclopedic. Thus it complements our other criteria
 * }
 * with Notability is generally deemed an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOT), as it is one aspect of the requirement that an article be encyclopedic. Thus it complements our other criteria
 * }

Procedure

 * 1) This proposal will require 75 percent support ("Support" choices in a poll) to pass.
 * 2) Votes by users who are not logged in will be discounted, as will votes cast by any user that had less than 50 edits when this vote started.
 * 3) The wording of this proposal will be fixed when the poll has opened. Please do not edit this page, but discuss changes on the talk page.
 * 4) When the poll has opened it will take place on the /poll page
 * 5) The poll will close 2 weeks after it opens.

Pro

 * Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia. it is frequently cited as a reason for deletion on WP:AFD, it has been formalized as a reason for speedy deletion in at least one case (see WP:CSD point 7). Therefore it makes sense to require notability for everything, rather than just people.
 * WP:NOT already says: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. and Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. and Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. and Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. WP:VAIN asks us to consider if a person is "noteworthy".
 * Most importantly, Five pillars (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that articles must be encyclopedic. From this follows our requirement of the Neutral Point of View, and of verifiability. From this it also follows that articles should be about notable topics. While the degree of notability required may be debated, completely trivial topics do not belong in an encyclopedia, even one that is not paper.
 * While notability can be subjective in some cases, even then it is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it - for example WP:WEB is accepted by many in AfD as a requirement for the inclusion of certain websites
 * When people give opinions on things they don't much know about as "non-notable" they can easily be convinced/outweighed by the more knowledgable ones. AfD is a discussion, after all.

Con

 * Notability is a point of view, and therefore too subjective – there is never a predefined consensus on what is or isn't notable in any given field. We cannot presume to know what our readers, either now or in the future, will consider to be notable.
 * Notability is just an excuse for "I haven't heard of it so delete it." Most of the people that nominate or vote on articles are not experts in the field in question, so this creates an exposure that valid content could be deleted. Notability is also sometimes an excuse for "I don't have an interest in the topic", "I consider the topic worthy of contempt", "I don't think the topic is sufficiently excellent (i.e. an NBA benchwarmer)", etc.
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. Wikipedia is several times larger than any paper encyclopedia, so there is room for topics that would never appear in a paper encyclopedia.  Consider that a search on Amazon.com in the Books section for "encyclopedia" yields over 27,000 results.
 * Using notability as a criterion for deletion as opposed to verifiability is much less polite to new users who write about obscure topics.
 * The deletion policy already deals with non-notable articles. It says that they should be merged into larger articles, thus building the encyclopedia up.  If content can be used to help build better articles, it should be kept, not deleted.
 * Most importantly, Five pillars (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that articles must be encyclopedic. From this follows our requirement of the Neutral Point of View, and of verifiability. From this it follows that even subjects that might not be notable, such as Qubit Field Theory, should still be retained because its verifiability makes it encyclopedic. The verifiability rule already includes an implicit notability requirement, as few things that are completely non-notable are verifiable.
 * A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a constructive process which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible, and due to the high standards required of a reliable source, the vast majority of articles which proponents of a notability criterion would like to be deleted would in fact be deleted. On the other hand, making notability an official requirement would be a retrograde step away from this policy and would ensure that AfD continues to degenerate.

Discussion
Please discuss this proposal on the talk page.