There is no Wikipedia policy on notability, nor is this a proposal for one.
A topic has notability if is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. It's an extension of the notion of "notoriety" for biographical articles. It differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable articles are famous or important.
Notability and deletion
editIt has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research.
Arguments for deleting non-notable articles
edit- 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. Some have said, "Why not write an article on your next-door neighbor's dog, as long as it's verifiable and NPOV?"
- The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Many vanity articles are deleted because the people discussed are non-notable. Sometimes, there is some content in a non-notable article that can be merged into another article. For example, If a British boy wins an award from his police station for creating a new organization scheme for the British Police Cadets, he may write a vanity article about himself. It may be judged that the new organizational scheme was notable while the details of the award ceremony and the identity of the boy were non-notable. In this case, the notable content in the vanity article on the British boy can be merged into a larger article on cadet schemes in Britain.
Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability
edit- These Wikipedians argue that the "an article on your next-door neighbor's dog" is almost certainly not verifiable as there are no secondary sources on the subject, such as academic journals or the media. If there does happen to be an extensive literature on your neighbor's dog it is probably worth including.
- Opponents feel that the Wikipedia:No original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic; such as your direct observations of the dog. If the dog appears in a reputable publication, that's another story.
- Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied. There is a level of ease with which facts can be checked that must be maintained in order to be verifiable in a practical sense: theoretical verifiability isn't enough. A garage band in Seattle may consist of Mike, Jeff, Scott and Mike, and that may theoretically be verifiable (if one traveled to Seattle); but that's not enough. One needs to be able to look it up in a book or on the Web. And not just any source: blogs, zines, e-zines, stuff you printed up, self-recorded CDs, and other "vanity media" don't count as "sources." And a single source isn't really enough. No context or comparison is possible with a single source. The standard could apply to things which are public record (after all, many people have birth certificates, but that doesn't make us notable) or are mentioned once or twice in public works. Notable subjects will provide a choice of sources—even if only one is cited to begin with, future editors have the opportunity to counter, compare and revise according to information in other sources. Without this choice of sources, this isn't possible.
- 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."
- There are no objective criteria for notability.