Talk:Notability in the English Wikipedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability in the English Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Wikipedia's notability standards. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Wikipedia's notability standards at the Reference desk. For more information on Wikipedia's policies on editing and notability see Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Notability, to ask questions about current policy go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). |
 | 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?
editWe'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
editThis 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)
"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)
Notability?
editWhat's the point of this article? We don't need it... 2600:6C52:7200:F80D:60A7:EBAA:308A:CDF1 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)