User:BenBildstein/Notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

This document aims to cover arguments for and against notability being a requirement on Wikipedia. Please read each argument, for or against, keeping in mind that other policies would still be in place.

Please feel free to add new arguments for or against. Please only add counter arguments if they are not already listed as arguments for the other side.

Please discuss at the talk page.

Contents 1 Arguments for requiring notability of article topics 1.1 Only notable articles have encyclopedic suitability 1.2 It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia 1.3 Counter argument 2 Arguments against requiring notability of article topics 2.1 Wikipedia should strive to contain the sum of all human knowledge 2.2 Counter-argument

[edit] Arguments for requiring notability of article topics

[edit] Only notable articles have encyclopedic suitability

This is implied by the first line of the Notability Guideline, which says "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability."

[edit] It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia

From User:Uncle_G/On_notability

[edit] Counter argument

It is actually WP:NOT that achieves this

[edit] Arguments against requiring notability of article topics

[edit] Wikipedia should strive to contain the sum of all human knowledge

This comes from a quote from User:Jimbo_Wales.

[edit] Counter-argument

Someone suggested this was actually Wikia's goal, not Wikipedia's. This makes sense, as clearly knowledge on particular words, for example, belongs in Wiktionary and not Wikipedia.