[[Category:Wikipedia {{{1}}}s|Notability/Historical/Arguments]]

There is no Wikipedia policy on notability. However, lack of notability is currently used as a criterion for the deletion for articles on certain topics.

There is currently a proposal to require notability as well as a proposal to remove any requirements of notability.

Lack of notability is often designated by the phrase "non-notable" or the abbreviation "nn". Some Wikipedians feel that the term "notability" has acquired a bad reputation on Wikipedia because it is often used as a proxy for "I haven't heard of it" or "I don't think it's an interesting subject."

Much of the debate about notability comes from varying definitions of what notability is. If an editor describes an article non-notable, he or she may mean that it is original research, unverifiable, or a vanity page — all of which are criteria for deletion. If an editor says that a "non-notable" article should remain, he or she may mean that its relative obscurity does not make it unencyclopedic or preclude it in any other way.

Notability is not a synonym for verifiability. Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.

Notability is not a synonym for importance. Articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people.

Notability should not be confused with vanity. Wikipedia should not contain any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

Lack of notability is not a general criterion for deletion. However, it is commonly used as such. In addition, it is a specific criterion for deletion for articles about people, websites, webcomics, and bands.

Biographies

In July 2005, a vote was taken to add vanity articles to the criteria for speedy deletion with 120 people supporting and 42 people opposing. Since then, people have refered to this as the "non-notable biography policy" but it is actually a "non-vanity biography policy", and can be used by adding {{db-bio}} to an article.

Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies for further information.

Websites

The website guidelines require a specific Alexa ranking or forum membership to determine notability.

Webcomics

The webcomics inclusion guidelines require a specific Alexa ranking and a specific history to determine notability.

Bands

The musician and band inclusion guidelines require one of seven notability criteria. Bands and musicians are often deleted for lack of notability. However, songs and albums are generally allowed to remain.

Fiction

The fiction guidelines call for the merging of articles on fictional characters (and places, concepts, etc.) into a relevant main article, and emphasize not deleting. meaningful content.

Numbers

WikiProject Numbers has guidelines for what numbers deserve articles.

Companies and economic information

The guidelines for companies, corporations and economic information require one of six notability criteria.

Because Wikipedia is not paper and (theoretically) has no size limits, some argue that Wikipedia should include "everything" that fits within the other criteria. However, there are also a number of arguments why articles that are deemed non-notable should be deleted. These arguments are as follows:

Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability

There is a lack of objective criteria

There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests. "Non-notable" is generally a non-NPOV designation.

Existing rules are sufficient

The no original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic. Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied.

Valid content is deleted

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance).

Arguments for deleting articles for non-notability

Obscure topics do not belong

Since Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source — much less a vehicle for publication of direct observation — non-notable subjects do not belong in it.

Obscure topics clutter categories

Categories and the random article feature would both cease to be usable.

Every article would require a disambiguation page

Wikipedia would become too cluttered with articles that are not what one is searching for.