Wikipedia talk:Inherent notability

Fundamentally misguided

This is fundamentally misguided. We should not be looking to invent our own arbitrary notability criteria. I don't see any rationale being given here- it's just a list of things the author apparently thinks are notable. Friday (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Note most of the article is just a summary of the individual articles on notability. The only thing new is the attempt to codify geography, which has always been in force, but unwritten. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are clearly unsupported WP:POV issues and peacock terms in use in this essay as it stands. I add a bit to indicate that this is an ongoing argument and that it is NOT considered a standard that all users should follow. Jeepday (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please be kind enough to point of the Peacock terms and what is a violation of a WP:POV. You have added the tags, but give no context and give no indication of which sentences violate WP:POV. Adding a tag is easy, but its useless unless you can point out specific sentences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. The only subjects areas that would achieve consensus as inherently notable are ones where there's never any controversy. For example, I think everyone could agree that heads of state are inherently notable, but there's never been any dispute about this. There's plenty of reliable, independent, non-trivial sources for these subjects. What this essay needs, at a minimum, is some reasoning for why these things would be considered inherently notable. I know that I'd contest that "All sports figures that play in at least one professional game" are notable. Every sport, every level, every country, every time period? Chaz ^Beckett 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Augustin O'Donnell played professional rugby for two years before succumbing to a kidney condition. You will find scant coverage of him in independent sources, his career having been cut short. Not notable, poor chap. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of Augustin O'Donnell, so I'm not sure if he's a notable fellow or not. However, the notability of a specific person is far different than the concept of inherent notability of an entire subject area. Chaz ^Beckett 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not notable. That was the point. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that minor league baseball players in the US are not inherently notable, even though they are fully professional. Dsmdgold 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't support this proposal. There is no topic that is "inherently notable". The fundamental rule is that a subject is notable if there are significant secondary sources. However, there are exceptions to the notable rule eg. WP:BIO and the like. If a topic is "inherently notable", then it should become the subject of a clearly worded exception guideline. Otherwise AfD debates are always going to invoke inherent notability, which is something that is very subjective, not objective. I agree that it is about time that an exception guideline for schools and geography should be codified, but that is something different to "inherent notability" which doesn't assist editors in creating articles. Assize 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with policy

This opening paragraph is logically flawed and is counter to wiki policy.

Certain topics have inherent notability that is recognized by Wikipedia, the most common example is in geography, where all towns and cities have articles. The articles exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", some are just outputed census data. Consensus for other categories of Inherent notability has not been reached.

1. That "Certain topics have inherent notability that is recognized by Wikipedia" is an untrue statement. There is no policy or guideline or formalized consensus for this statement.

2. That "the most common example is in geography, where all towns and cities have articles" is an untrue statement. Many towns and cities do have articles, "Many" is not "all".

3. That "The articles exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works" does not provide Inherent notability. If that was true then subject of every article that exists would be subject to inherent notability and not just certain topics. Per the core content policy Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

4. That "some are just outputed census data" is true. Example Ghorabandha but these articles are still subject to the core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They should have references listed and be verifiable to meet policy

5. This statement "Consensus for other categories of Inherent notability has not been reached" implies that consensus for inherent notability has been reached for some categories. This is an untrue statement, if consensus had been reached there would be a policy Wikipedia:Inherent notability, there is not a such a policy.

Summary - The only true statement in this opening paragraph is "articles exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works" which says that article exist that are counter to Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. We established in item 3 that existence of an article does not provide inherent notability, if it did then no article would reach consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for lack of notability. I have placed the {{Disputeabout}} on this essay for the reasons above. Jeepday (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Response If this is a policy proposal, then it doesn't matter whether or not the opening paragraph is counter to Wikipedia policy -- it is meant to replace part of Wikipedia policy.

1. WP:OUTCOMES shows that even without certain policies, it is accepted practice that, for instance, locality articles are not deleted. That type of article has inherent notability.

2. So what if it's "many" or "all"? I don't know, but I strongly suspect it's "all". The real point is that no one deletes locality articles. Because they're inherently notable.

3. & 5. See my response to #2 just above.

Response to "Summary": WP:V can be met as long as even a single reliable source is cited. WP:N requires multiple sourcing, so we can have a slew of single-source articles that are not at all in conflict with WP:V. Noroton 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording changes and mention of WP:V do much to address my major concerns. I might suggest that words different then "right to exist" and "entitled to". A quick review of the parent (Wikipedia:Notability) only use "right" as opposed to "left". Also Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline not a policy so presumably if Wikipedia:Inherent notability is accepted it would be a guideline not a policy. Guidelines are "generally accepted among editors" and I am not aware of any that are in direct conflict with a policy. All in all this is looking much better, you might want to find a couple of good AFD's to use as references or examples for the conclusions. 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs)

I agree that the proposal would be improved if language about "right to exist" and "entitled to" were replaced or removed. What policies does this proposal conflict with? Noroton 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (fix wording Noroton 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

I think the recent changes that acknowledge WP:V and WP:CITE address my concerns about policy conflict. Making the language a little softer and more in line with WP:N A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below would read something like A subject is presumed to be inherent notable if it falls into one of the categories in the guideline below here. Guidelines are softer than policies as they are meant to guide not to direct. Jeepday (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A justification for inherent notability

If we can reasonably conclude that some type of subject is always and everywhere the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, then we don't advance the purposes of the encyclopedia by deleting these types of articles, as long as they meet other Wikipedia requirements.

It strains credulity to think that any public secondary school (a/k/a high school), anywhere, has not been the subject of substantial coverage by at least a local newspaper. Nearly all private secondary schools also receive substantial coverage. When a high school is built, it is always notable enough for some local, independent, reliable news organization to publish a news article about. Then more coverage follows. It is unreasonable to believe that this coverage does not exist. Therefore, deleting articles on high schools only means that the work of creating a new high school article will have to be repeated later. Editors may be discouraged if they find a deleted article on the same subject means they have more obstacles to overcome to create the new article. For the good of Wikipedia, we should recognize that all high schools are inherently notable, just as we already do with notability articles.

The same argument can be made for other classes of subjects, such as critical-care hospitals.

Articles will still need to be reliably sourced, but a school Web site, for instance, is reliable, even if it isn't independent. If we wind up with information only from "trivial" mentions in sources and from the subject of the article (say, the high school), that should be sufficient until independent sources eventually are found.

One reason, it seems, why we have WP:N is to make sure that articles aren't kept that no one would really care about. But someone always cares about a high school or a hospitals. Neither of these types of organizations tends to be unreliable in putting up information about itself on its Web site or in its literature (at least not the public high schools and hospitals). I don't see any horrible result for Wikipedia if we start recognizing that these types of organizations should have articles as a matter of course. Noroton 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rejected

This has been discussed and attracted little notice other than objection, except from the original author. It meet the criteria for rejection. --Kevin Murray 00:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can't reject an essay. You just ignore it or edit it. Hiding T 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be moved to user space as its been written almost entirely by one editor and not accepted at all. Chaz ^Beckett 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't userfy essays on that basis. Essays are just that, essays. Either edit it or ignore it. When we need the server space the devs will let us know. Wikipedia has a long tradition of allowing users to write essays in the Wikipedia space. Hiding T 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course we move things to proper place. See WP:ESSAY, where it says "Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author.". Server space is irrelevant as the essay will still exist and isn't being deleted. See Category:User essays for many other examples. Chaz ^Beckett 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll edit it then. Hiding T 19:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting concept

One of the ones that bother me on this is sports team members. It seems that anyone who has ever played for a sports team (even quite minor leagues) is apparently deserving and notable enough for their own page. There is no apparent requirement for playing more than a single game even. Along a somewhat similar vein, we do not give the same notability for musicians who provide backup for bigger-name acts. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

interesting section.

Items with defacto notability are very likely to survive a deletion proposal, even when lacking a list of references that describe them as notable. It is suggested that if you do not believe an item within a defacto notable topic belongs to consider placing appropriate tags at the top of the page, merging, or redirecting the article rather than proposing it for deletion.

Wow. So if we don't think we can successfully AfD an article, we should just contravene apparent consensus and merge it somewhere? Gigs (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

It is impossible to write a Wikipedia article that follows WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc, without having non-trivial sources. If an article is kept because it is "inherently notable", yet it does not have any non-trivial sources, then it is not an encyclopaedia article, and does not add to Wikipedia in a useful way. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

List of things that are inherently notable

Hello all,

Quick question - Is there anywhere that calls out what is or is not "inherently notable". The idea that "all living things" are inherently notable seems pretty well established. But is it written into policy anywhere? NickCT (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Argument for inherent notability seems off

The arguments for inherent notability in this essay don't seem to actually be representing the arguments i've always heard for them. For example, for census designated places, they are believed to have inherent notability 1) Because the pillars say that Wikipedia is meant to be a gazetteer and 2) every place that exists will have coverage of it. The issue is that the coverage, especially in third world countries, is likely to not be on the internet, but in print form, so it requires an actual person to search and find them. But it is firmly believed that such sources are guaranteed to exist, because every place has coverage from some news source.

Living things are a bit different. It is well known that all living things are going to be cataloged and discussed in some paper somewhere. The issue with a lot of these is that the sources discussing them are also only in print or they are instead behind rather high science paywalls and, thus, hard to get to. Silverseren^C 01:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Silver, the doctrine of de facto notability assumes that consensus trumps policy. If that's the case, then policy can simply be ignored. The crowd will rule regardless. Sri Lankan cricket players for whom we don't even have a first name get articles, even if we know nothing else about them, except that they appear once on a team roster (with first initial only). Rhadow (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Rhadow Don't flog a dead horse. This has been dead nearly six and a half years.--Launchballer 21:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, I see arguments every day, especially at AFD where it is argued, or pushed, that there is inherent notability. This can be confusing, most certainly for newer editors, so this topic is important if for anything else but an editing guideline, explanatory supplement, or instruction guide. "This page in a nutshell: Ultimately, the community decides if a subject is intrinsically notable.", is absolutely true when more broad community consensus accepts that a policy or guideline should be ignored. I add this because a group of editors (The crowd) on a subject, project, or article cannot override the more broadly accepted community-wide consensus. A more narrow consensus can fly under the radar but if contested it can be shot down. However, specifically concerning people and more especially BLP's, there is a push to include certain people by virtue of their occupation, as inherently notable. Professors are one such area. Just today a "keep" !vote stated "She’s a full professor and research chair. No question she’s notable.". We can "assume" (not the good faith kind) or "surmise" what the editor was meaning but as simply stated it 100% protracts that there is inherent notability. We have sourcing standards, yet we have academic sourcing standards that allow primary sources only to advance notability. An article on a model can be deleted when there is either primary sources only or industry specific sources used to advance notability but a professor, especially with a chair, is notable by primary sources only. If it involves a BLP there are supposedly higher standards but these have been eased for these professors with chairs by allowing primary sources only. Since this has become accepted community-wide it has become defacto accepted that such a person is "inherently" accepted as notable, like it or not. Even with this, if an article is unsourced it can still be deleted unless someone provides or adds a source.

An essay does have some "authority" when supported by consensus. Someone will argue that a certain essay is not policy but will carry the weight of consensus, especially if used a lot. An essay can not nor should conflict with policies and guidelines but an editor can be sanctioned for running a fowl of consensus on essays. An editors can be sanctioned because he or she creates Wikipedia:Coatrack articles after being warned. There are many instances that can be brought up.

There is and always will be a push to make changes because consensus can change. A section here ("A justification for inherent notability") pushes that public secondary schools (a/k/a high schools), anywhere be notable as well as critical-care hospitals. WP:NSCHOOL has shown that schools in general, as well as other schools (private) and organizations, that includes "All universities, colleges and schools" must satisfy notability guidelines so are not inherently notable.

This subject, inherent notability, is currently used on talk pages and AFD's so this alone shows relevance. I believe that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.", but this does not mean just the "state of the article". Along with No original research and Neutral point of view these are core content policies. As for as title notability we have policies, guidelines, and a manual of style (even some essays) that guide and direct how we determine notability including the use of primary sources. Ultimately consensus does affect the outcome on Wikipedia because what would seem notable or even not notable can receive surprising results with the right arguments. Please note: I have not looked at the essay in depth but my comments are concerning the topic, use on Wikipedia, and a need to have and even expand this subject. A problem is that it takes continuous dialog, such as has happened on the talk page, so that all areas of concerns are covered. Even if there are those that don't want there to be inherent notability, if the fact is that there are exceptions this can be presented to cover both sides. Otr500 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the context in which consensus is decided. When the topic is Indian railway stations, villages or Sri Lankan cricket players, a small group of enthusiasts will rally at AfD. They don't read the article, they don't bother to check that there is no reliable reference. Doesn't matter. Their minds were made up beforehand. Essentially it is a free-rider problem. Wikipedia has a reputation for reliability generally, witness the high standards for BLP and recent political history. These crummy articles rely on Wikipedia's reputation even when they are completely or mostly unreferenced. They threaten that good reputation. Rhadow (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have seen problems in this area but the issue is that no matter which way the wind is blowing the discussion of "inherent notability" is a a topic that comes up. Otr500 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Are villages inherently notable?

It seems to me that villages about which one or two sentences can be written is not notable enough for an article. Why not redirect names of villages like these to the broader region, where the place can be mentioned in that article. I am specifically thinking of the article on Nova Božurna.--Pgapunk (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)