97:
35:
79:
234:
lists of arguments about the applicability of "notability" to the article deletion process; as such it retains value as a summary of the debate. Began as an attempt to define "notability" as "known outside of a narrow interest group" and (unsuccessfully) to distinguish "notability" from such ideas
125:
as a deletion criterion on
Knowledge (XXG) began (so far as there is a clear record) in early 2004, and has varied widely from proposal to proposal, from highly subjective concepts like "fame" or "importance", through incomprehensible ones like "actionability", to, finally, today's stable and more
172:'s recognition of several, more subjective subject-specific notability criteria as actionable for article deletion. These issues have mostly been ironed out as of the late 2010s, though some subject-specific notability guidelines retain language that appears to suggest they supersede WP:N's
319:
with regard to it, it was notable (thus even a rock star's guitar that he'd named "Betty" could be "notable" if interviews or a fansite mentioned it, or
Wikipedians argued over why it was named that), while otherwise a topic was non-notable (e.g. flavor of particular kinds of garden
492:
315:(November 2003 – May 2005) – A proposal that defined notability in terms of "actionability", such that if an article topic could be researched, could be found to have a fan base, could stimulate a lot of talk page discussion, or otherwise something could be
566:– Index of lots of mostly later notability essays, generally about the concept's application and not relevant to the history of its development. The viewpoints are sometimes consensus-laden, others rather lacking in the quality.
360:
130:
guideline – which still has its critics. No issue on
Knowledge (XXG) has seen more debate, nor perhaps more heated debate, than some variation on notability as a dividing line on whether to allow or delete an article.
512:
247:
472:(June 2006 – March 2007) – A short piece that essentially says "just because there are other similar articles in Knowledge (XXG) doesn't mean that the article in question is automatically notable". Disposition:
590:
345:
259:
199:
585:
279:
311:
324:
383:
218:
134:
Below is a list of most if not all of the
Knowledge (XXG)-wide guideline/policy proposals, and development-influential essays, relating to notability in some way or another, with their
468:
532:
477:
195:
184:
629:
272:
378:
Note: Most of the content was moved to its talk page because it turned into a discussion rather than a project/essay; the non-talk page is just a pointer to the talk page.
464:, some of the concerns raised by which remained current into the early 2010s; it is not frequently mentioned, though updated every few years with additional observations.
287:(March 2006 – May 2006) — The first known attempt at an objective criterion (as a proposal or essay), which clearly influenced the later "general notability guideline" (
613:
448:
328:(August 2004 – August 2006) – Criteria included the ill-defined "important", "famous", and "relevant", and even more questionable ones such as having a longer-than-
428:(July 2006 – December 2006, with minor updates) – the origin of the "general notability criterion" (formerly "primary notability criterion") as currently used in
644:
563:
409:
372:'s position on the issue. The difficulty of coming to consensus on determining what criteria/definition to apply is well-recorded here. Disposition:
194:(August 2006 – present) – Multi-topic essay on just what it says, including various fallacious notability and non-notability arguments (e.g. at its "
496:(July 2005 – September 2006) – Rather skeletal list of means for determining if an article topic is notable enough for an article, ranging from
607:
21:
87:
Collection of early discussions on the concept of notability within
Knowledge (XXG) and associated proposals, predating the establishment of
364:(January 2004 – April 2006) – Began as a poll on whether notability criteria should be applied to Knowledge (XXG). Poll results: 57–38,
369:
569:
295:(via the Uncle G essay, below, which called the same concept the "primary notability criterion" or PNC); it was the first to call for
85:
597:
and be transcluded onto all the notability subguidelines for consistency, but the effort wasn't accepted and it was quickly deleted.
444:
guideline is its direct descendant in many respects. No longer frequently mentioned directly, though it was into the early 2010s.
332:
article already, or declared to be "important" by multiple editors on the article's talk page (echoes of this idea remain in the
649:
54:
34:
17:
634:
654:
639:
169:
416:
103:
The talk page of an archived item is unlikely to be monitored, so start a discussion at an active venue like the
485:
104:
168:
and under heavy revision, while designated a guideline, ca. December 2006 – February 2007). May conflict with
594:
481:
441:
292:
148:
127:
88:
61:
616:– a user essay on the 2001–2009 development of various ideas into the eventual notability guideline
537:
525:
473:
461:
433:
373:
349:
300:
252:
497:
437:
211:
161:
40:
505:
500:
to library research; criticized as encouraging unreliable methods (methods still over-used in
268:
165:
329:
190:
452:(July 2006 – July 2007, with minor updates) – Lingering problems surrounding integration of
501:
457:
333:
288:
240:
207:
177:
222:(May 2005 – September 2006, with some additional minor activity) – Evolved into a pair of
239:; remains semi-active as a catalog of generalized arguments, but not frequently cited at
236:
203:
453:
429:
353:
304:
264:
152:
623:
550:
520:
essay in defense of the Non-notability proposal (above) that in the end was not very
460:
and processes, and ideas on what to do about them. Disposition: A marginally active
387:(September 2006 – November 2007) – More of a consensus discussion and a catalogue of
156:(September 2006 – present) – Attempts to define "notability" objectively, as having
544:
560:
being the compromise position between them). Disposition: All active and stable.
554:– the basic, opposed "wikiphilosophies" at play in the notability debate (with
344:
deleted on grounds of non-notability). This one is principally interesting for
556:
235:
as "fame", "importance", or "notoriety". Disposition: Re-designated an
432:
and the more objective approach now favored. Disposition: Active
267:; was supported by "Non-notability/Essay" (below). Disposition:
340:
the notability of their topic, even without sources, cannot be
610:– a user essay on the origins of notability on Knowledge (XXG)
29:
352:
and moot (replaced by more objective criteria on the road to
593:) was created in April 2007 to hold the essential text of
478:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
348:
rather than its sparse and confused content. Disposition:
185:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
219:
Notability arguments for and against deletion of articles
263:(June 2006 – October 2006) – A counter-proposal to
210:and other XfDs that it should probably be tagged a
60:don't necessarily represent current information or
614:User:Pixelface/Timeline of notability guidelines
564:Category:Knowledge (XXG) essays about notability
410:Category:Knowledge (XXG) essays about notability
299:, though did so in longer wording. Disposition:
630:Items in the Knowledge (XXG) historical archive
516:(July 2005 – September 2006) – A perhaps well-
493:List of ways to verify notability of articles
202:" sections). Disposition: Active and stable
8:
251:(October 2005 – January 2006) Disposition:
469:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
394:
388:
229:
223:
572:– Ditto, mostly toward the "lacking" side
536:(October 2005 – June 2006) Disposition:
645:Knowledge (XXG) essays about notability
608:User:El Sandifer/History of notability
297:multiple, independent reliable sources
158:multiple, independent reliable sources
248:Notability changes needed to policies
114:Notability history in Knowledge (XXG)
101:Looking to revive discussion on this?
7:
58:. As an archive item, its contents
570:Category:User essays on notability
160:. Disposition: Active and stable
41:Knowledge (XXG) historical archive
28:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Historical archive
52:in the English Knowledge (XXG)'s
476:and moot (largely supplanted by
436:; as such it is not any form of
336:, in which articles that simply
95:
77:
33:
170:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
449:Notability and Deletion policy
72:November 2003 to November 2007
1:
422:the Uncle G notability essay
334:Criteria for speedy deletion
206:, so heavily relied upon at
174:general notability guideline
123:of the subject of an article
504:even today). Disposition:
180:), causing sporadic debate.
671:
650:Knowledge (XXG) notability
595:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
442:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
407:
149:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
128:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
89:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
273:a Request for Arbitration
635:Knowledge (XXG) archives
303:and moot (supplanted by
655:Knowledge (XXG) history
640:Knowledge (XXG) culture
50:preserved for reference
498:the search engine test
395:
389:
368:, with much ado about
230:
224:
138:lifespans, and notes.
456:into Knowledge (XXG)
200:It's useful/important
196:What about article x?
513:Non-notability/Essay
384:Notability arguments
361:Fame and importance
285:Notability/Proposal
142:Guideline proposals
136:active development
64:on project matters
55:historical archive
551:Meta:Inclusionism
379:
255:and largely moot.
111:
110:
83:Item description:
662:
545:Meta:Deletionism
533:Notability/Essay
524:. Disposition:
398:
392:
377:
233:
227:
99:
98:
93:
81:
80:
42:
37:
30:
670:
669:
665:
664:
663:
661:
660:
659:
620:
619:
604:
581:
486:WP:ITSIMPORTANT
458:Deletion policy
412:
406:
144:
118:The concept of
116:
96:
78:
66:.It was active
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
668:
666:
658:
657:
652:
647:
642:
637:
632:
622:
621:
618:
617:
611:
603:
600:
599:
598:
580:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
561:
541:
529:
509:
489:
465:
445:
405:
402:
401:
400:
380:
357:
321:
308:
276:
260:Non-notability
256:
244:
215:
181:
143:
140:
115:
112:
109:
108:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
667:
656:
653:
651:
648:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
627:
625:
615:
612:
609:
606:
605:
601:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:/Template:Pnc
583:
582:
578:
571:
568:
567:
565:
562:
559:
558:
553:
552:
547:
546:
542:
539:
535:
534:
530:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
490:
487:
483:
482:WP:WHATABOUTX
480:, especially
479:
475:
471:
470:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:the PNC essay
423:
419:
418:
417:On Notability
414:
413:
411:
403:
397:
391:
386:
385:
381:
375:
371:
367:
363:
362:
358:
355:
351:
347:
346:its talk page
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
309:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:WP:Notability
290:
286:
282:
281:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
257:
254:
250:
249:
245:
242:
238:
232:
226:
221:
220:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
192:
187:
186:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
154:
150:
146:
145:
141:
139:
137:
132:
129:
124:
122:
113:
106:
102:
94:
92:
90:
84:
75:
73:
69:
65:
63:
57:
56:
51:
47:
44:This page is
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
19:
584:
557:Meta:Mergism
555:
549:
543:
531:
521:
517:
511:
491:
467:
447:
425:
421:
415:
382:
366:no consensus
365:
359:
341:
337:
323:
316:
310:
296:
284:
280:Significance
278:
258:
246:
217:
189:
183:
173:
157:
147:
135:
133:
120:
119:
117:
105:village pump
100:
86:
82:
76:
71:
67:
59:
53:
49:
45:
43:
528:, and moot.
376:and moot.
312:Informative
624:Categories
522:persuasive
474:Historical
462:User Essay
440:, but the
434:User Essay
408:See also:
399:arguments.
325:Importance
126:objective
121:notability
579:Templates
212:Guideline
162:Guideline
62:consensus
602:See also
538:Inactive
526:Inactive
518:reasoned
506:Rejected
420:(a.k.a.
374:Inactive
350:Inactive
342:speedily
301:Inactive
269:Rejected
253:Inactive
166:Disputed
107:instead.
46:inactive
20: |
283:a.k.a.
198:" and "
191:WP:AADD
188:a.k.a.
151:a.k.a.
91:in 2006
502:WP:AFD
438:policy
404:Essays
338:assert
320:soil).
289:WP:GNG
271:, per
241:WP:AFD
208:WP:AFD
178:WP:GNG
22:Policy
370:Jimbo
291:) of
237:Essay
204:Essay
164:(was
70:from
16:<
591:talk
548:and
484:and
454:WP:N
430:WP:N
424:and
393:and
354:WP:N
330:stub
317:done
305:WP:N
265:WP:N
228:and
153:WP:N
48:and
396:con
390:pro
231:con
225:pro
626::
488:).
356:).
307:).
74:.
589:(
540:.
508:.
275:.
243:.
214:.
176:(
68:
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
