Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination)

Alternate paths to define Wikipedia notability
The text below is extracted from the lede of WP:N and Template:Notability guide.


 * Analysis. WP:N has one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice".  Paths to define:


 * Meet the general notability guideline (GNG).
 * Satisfy one of the criteria in one of the subject-specific guidelines (SNGs).
 * Satisfy other guidelines that argue directly to the requirement. Such may come from the subject-specific notability essays, the WP:N nutshell, the fundamental principles WP:5P, and the explanatory supplement "common outcomes".
 * Previously posted on 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I was really afraid you were going to say that. "notability" is just a name to hang the problem on.  The problem is - "Can we write an article that satisfies Wikipedia's content policies?"  Those key content policies are V, OR, and NPOV.   The answer obviously will depend on sources.  GNG defines the general notion - multiple independent RS with significant discussion.   Without those, we cannot write an article that satisfies N, OR, and NPOV.  Some wikiprojects have funky sources, like this one, where databases are the key sources. So I understand some efforts to adapt N to be workable in those contexts. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the idea that notable topics are only those for which an article can be written has a long history. One problem, of circular reasoning, is the idea that the absence of an article proves that the topic is not notable.  WP:N today creates no content requirements except for an exception involving lists, and WP:N is defined outside of Wikipedia.  I proposed in October at WT:V a WP:DEL-REASON for "Insufficient sources to write an article that meets the core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV.", but the proposal got no traction.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * so you did! i have been thinking about something exactly along those lines; needs to be part of WP:N as well. nice!  am stewing on this. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)