Wikipedia talk:Notability

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:N

Before assessing if a subject has enough notability to create an article, check out if they have been assessed at Wikipedia:Source assessment first.

Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Notability

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

G.F. (2013-05-06). "Who really runs Wikipedia?". Make Use Of.
Alexandra Thom (16 July 2013). "Writing Women Back Into History". Brooklyn Museum.
Seth Stephans-Davidowitz (22 March 2014). "The Geography of Fame". The New York Times.
Stephen Harrison (26 March 2019). "The Notability Blues". Slate.
. Deccan Chronicle.
Manjula Selvarajah (19 August 2021). "Canadian Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias, study finds". CBC.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Product catalog/discography/filmography of a publisher

Discussion about if a product catalog type contents that would not be appropriate under WP:NOTACATALOG #6 would be appropriate to be created as a separate standalone list at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Creation_of_product_catalog_under_a_new_article Graywalls (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (species)

An RfC to adopt a subject-specific notability guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. C F A 💬 05:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relation between Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) and GNG

Discussion of a related proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines has led me to notice that Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) (an established notability guideline) does not say anything about its relation to WP:GNG. Other notability guidelines relate to GNG in different ways: most establish a presumption of notability that must be confirmed through GNG, but WP:NCORP (for instance) is more strict than GNG in what it allows to count as significant coverage, and WP:PROF (for instance) is explicit that it stands separately from GNG.

So what is the relation between Notability (numbers) and GNG? Should that relation, whatever it is, be stated explicitly in Notability (numbers)? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that we do not have a hard defining relationship between the SNGs and the GNG, I don't think we need to force the numbers notability guideline to necessarily acknowledge the GNG. The guideline does infer notability of numbers comes from significant coverage of those numbers, but the type of sourcing or demonstration of that is highly tuned to the math and numerology fields. There probably should be a brief statement to say that wp considers a number notable for a standalone page as long as there is significant coverage of it, and the page narrowly describes how to determine that. So it should like to the purpose of WP:N but not necessarily to the GNG — Masem (t) 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:Notability (numbers) does not specifically mention GNG, it does repeatedly call for published material… and if there is published material then surely GNG is complied with. I don’t think it necessary to spell it out. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it clearly falls into the NCORP camp of being more strict than GNG, since it limits the kind of significant coverage required to particular types of publications. I think the relationship should be stated because more clarity is always a good thing. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with voorts (and Masem) that NNUMBER, like NCORP, is more strict than GNG by establishing stricter sourcing requirements. It could also be understood as defining aspects of WP:NOT for its topic, the way NFILM also does. I'm not sure of the extent of advantage to be gained by defining this relationship within the guideline, though. Newimpartial (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]