39:
Both proponents and opponents of notability criteria are, in most cases, working in good faith to improve
Knowledge (XXG). This essay expresses disagreement with the opinions of some of these editors by way of critique of the widely cited Uncle G essay. It is, however, meant to be respectful of the
135:
states that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory." Thus, such articles should be deleted per this policy. The same can be said of arguments in favor of notability that take the "registry of domain names" or "database of persons" track. In these cases, notability provides a redundant reason for
146:
Notability has gone beyond Uncle G's essay, however. It has been used by some to justify deleting articles about political candidates for major political parties in elections to a national office when multiple reliable sources about the article's subject are available (see, e.g.,
86:) effectively operate to prevent Knowledge (XXG) from becoming a phone directory, a database of all existing people, or a web directory. Our content policies are not so defective as to necessitate the adoption of detailed notability criteria, primary or secondary.
170:
If notability concerns are the only justification for deletion of an article, the article should not be deleted. I support this conclusion, but I think this is less likely to be consensus-supported than the other two.
101:
Though I would quibble with the use of "non-trivial" (is this a reference to the reliable sources guideline?), "multiple", and "separate" (if the subject of an article has been written about six times in the
111:
One common argument in favor of the adoption of these notability standards is that
Knowledge (XXG) could become a business directory because articles could be written about businesses referencing only their
50:
Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia. Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia and strives to become the sum of all human knowledge. Quite simply, these goals conflict at times. It is
Knowledge (XXG)'s
76:
Information on
Knowledge (XXG) must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable
42:
It is also a *very* rough draft and contains some relatively unsupported assertions (both normative and descriptive), but I hope to improve it eventually. Please let me know if you have any ideas.
96:
An article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself.
148:
79:" The reliable sources guideline, referenced throughout the policy text, is critical to the verifiability policy (as well as the no original research policy).
128:(it is also arguable that the phone book is a reliable source). The solution, then, is notability, which will prevent such articles from being created.
143:
as a primary reason for deletion of an article that should actually be deleted per WP:V or WP:NOT. Deletion should always rest on policy where possible.
151:) simply because they are "non-notable" as political candidates. Thus, notability is not only redundant in many cases, but it is also ripe for abuse.
159:
Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based on
Knowledge (XXG) policy.
108:, would it be excluded?), this is not necessarily a bad idea. It is, however, redundant to some degree and is ripe for abuse.
82:
Knowledge (XXG)'s four general content policies (verifiability, no original research, "What
Knowledge (XXG) is Not", and
34:
121:
83:
140:
132:
125:
68:
60:
56:
64:
104:
117:
52:
113:
17:
131:
Of course, such articles have no place on
Knowledge (XXG). Critically, however,
74:
Most relevant is the verifiability policy, which states in part, "
67:
guideline, however, that prevent
Knowledge (XXG) from becoming a
94:
Uncle G defines the primary "notability" criterion as, "
162:Notability is overused as a ground for deletion.
116:listing. Arguably, these articles would adhere to
8:
63:policies working in conjuction with the
7:
24:
139:Notability is sometimes cited at
40:opinions of established editors.
1:
61:"What Knowledge (XXG) is Not"
90:The problem with notability
185:
35:User:Uncle G/On notability
30:
33:This is a response to
84:neutral point of view
57:no original research
38:
48:
47:
31:
176:
65:reliable sources
26:
25:
184:
183:
179:
178:
177:
175:
174:
173:
168:
157:
92:
41:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
182:
180:
167:
164:
156:
153:
105:New York Times
91:
88:
46:
45:
43:
29:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
181:
172:
165:
163:
160:
154:
152:
150:
144:
142:
137:
134:
129:
127:
123:
119:
115:
109:
107:
106:
99:
97:
89:
87:
85:
80:
78:
72:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:verifiability
44:
37:
36:
28:
27:
19:
169:
161:
158:
145:
138:
136:deletion.
130:
114:Yellow Pages
110:
103:
100:
95:
93:
81:
75:
73:
49:
32:
18:User:Jersyko
166:Post script
155:Conclusions
69:directory
77:sources.
122:WP:NPOV
133:WP:NOT
126:WP:NOR
124:, and
59:, and
16:<
149:this
118:WP:V
98:"
141:AFD
120:,
71:.
55:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.