Talk:Notability on the English Wikipedia
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability on the English Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2009. The result of the discussion was SNOW Keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
What?
[edit]We'd never have an article about something like "reporting standards for CBS News" or "editorial inclusion policies of the Wall Street Journal" even if we could find three sources that have talked about it. It wouldn't deserve an article on its own and would be merged into the CBS News or Wall Street Journal articles.
CBS is one channel. Many viewers with one eye. Wikipedia has many eyes and many views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.64.202 (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Accordingly, this should be merged into the article about Wikipedia. To do otherwise would be to apply special standards to articles about ourselves. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this article comes off as a section that's been stretched through OR. –xeno talk 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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. Rd232 talk 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Irony =) We has it. –xeno talk 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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. Rd232 talk 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Needs updating
[edit]This article is somewhat outdated. Surely WP’s notability policy has received some commentary since the mid 2000s... even something from 2010s would be an improvement. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Lemieux, Mackenzie Emily; Zhang, Rebecca; Tripodi, Francesca (January 2023). ""Too Soon" to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Wikipedia". Big Data & Society. 10 (1). doi:10.1177/20539517231165490. ISSN 2053-9517. has a section on notability with a few sources between 2010 and 2021, so maybe it can also be used here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
"Always err on the side of unmerited favor." If I was notable content moderators might cite this quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.64.202 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Blueboar: Could you say a bit more about how it's outdated? —Alalch E. 17:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just that I would expect the topic to have been discussed in sources written more recently. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)