Wikipedia talk:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability

Early edits

Feel free to revert or move my bit if you disagree with it in the slightest, especially since this is in your userspace (now moved). I was just throwing out my take on it. --0x845FED 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're fine. I hadn't thought of a numbers take on it (nor had I read that guideline). I wanted other people to edit it.--Chaser T 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to edit this a little for clarity and such. This is a great idea, possible policy. Yanksox ^(talk) 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it. bd2412 T 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In which I start an existential crisis (not really)

I have two questions about keeping this page. First, is it instruction creep? Second, will it ever be anything more than something people cite to shorthand their arguments in *fD? Thoughts?--Chaser T 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the article itself yet, I'm going to play around with it since I have questions that I will post on here. I think you have to go through policy to get this promoted, but this could become a solid rule like WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. BTW, WP:INN is available, I think that should link here. Yanksox ^(talk) 02:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added WP:INN as a redirect. I'm hesitant to list both, b/c I think one preferred shortcut makes it easier to remember what is being referenced, but I welcome input.--Chaser T 05:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I only said that because WP:INN might be easier to remember than WP:INCL, doesn't hurt to have more than one link. :P Yanksox ^(talk) 05:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I just disagree about which is easier to remember. Tie breakers?--Chaser T 06:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, it really depends on the person. Alot of articles have multiple links, btw, I tacked something on the end of the first paragraph, just curious if it fits within the lines of the theory. Yanksox ^(talk) 06:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My goal in starting this was to shorthand a frequent argument (the title and bolded section) that is made at AfD, so that this could just be referenced instead of stating the argument for the hundredth time!. As long as it continues to be useful for that purpose (and maybe even if it doesn't) I'm happy to let the community editing process work.--Chaser T 06:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The second section, to me, seems like it's expendable. But, again, I'm crazy. Yanksox ^(talk) 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is part of a wider subject: Wikipedia Doesn't Work Like That. Arguments based on the misunderstanding that Wikipedia is organised and that work on it proceeds in a smooth controlled manner. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yerf AFD being one example. However, an essay covering all the possiblities of WDWLT would probably end up with less focus. So I think this is a good start. Has anyone tried linking it regularly in AFD discussions on a wider scale? I know one person linked it from a Star Trek AFD, because that's how I arrived. - Motor (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Guideline?

I honestly believe that this article is slowly evolving towards something that looks like a guideline. Something that can exist outside of AfDs, it's a collary and connection to WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. I think you've done well. Yanksox ^(talk) 06:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered, though other editors deserve a lot of credit for its current state. Could we let the editorial process go for a week or so before we propose it? What's the process for guideline approval anyway?--Chaser T 06:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still see somethings I'd like to play with. Also, I personally believe that the 2nd and 3rd section are a little iffy. But that's me. About guidelines, I'm mildly familar, but everything you need to know is here. Yanksox ^(talk) 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave defense of the second section to 0x845FED, who wrote it. As to the third, since this started as a shorthand response to fallacious arguments at AfD, I added the third section to point the reader to sources that might help them craft more persuasive arguments that were couched in guidelines.--Chaser T 06:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's a frequently used argument, 'essay' status seems to be appropriate here. Also, what's with the weird capitalisation in the title? Ziggurat 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In the first draft, the primary shortcut was WP:INN, which is currently a shortcut as well.--Chaser T 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Section

I somewhat understand what the second section is stating, but it needs greater clarity and a more straight forward vision. I would be willing to help on this and am interested in opinions. Yanksox ^(talk) 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I think the title is one-sided... There are certainly some AfD's where inclusionists can say "a similar article has been included before, so it should be kept", and deletionists can say "a similar article has been deleted before, so it should be deleted". Notability is a gray area, not a sharp line that everybody can agree on (although the gray area is bordered by black and white areas that many people agree are obvious keeps or deletes, but usually in those areas, other considerations like verifiability/spam/vandalism apply rather than notability). --0x845FED 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be in the best interest of the overal piece to eliminate this section. Of course, I'm crazy. Thoughts? Yanksox ^(talk) 05:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

SM247 made a similar argument about wiki jurisprudence, which is here. I'm not sure how this deviates from the precedents for deletion, but I appreciate your point. Is this thread referencing the second paragraph, or the second section (which involves numbers)? I'm confused by the statements.--Chaser T 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perverse shortcut

Given that the essay/guideline is anti-inclusionist, the shortcut "WP:INCL" is a bit perverse. --Lambiam^Talk 11:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasonability of arguments ex notabilitate superiore

Suppose -- for the sake of argument -- that you notice, or at least get the suspicion, that articles on marginally notable Belgian poets tend to survive deletion nominations, while equally or more notable Danish poets tend to get deleted. I believe that it is quite reasonable then for me to say: "Look, Christian Dotremont survived, and Piet Hein is more notable." Should we as a collective not try to be even-handed?

I find, specifically, this oft-used "argument" objectionable: If you think another article is of equal notability to one being considered for deletion, you are welcome to nominate that article as well, but please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. It turns things on its head! I (when making the remark in the previous paragraphy) have no desire whatsoever to see the article Christian Dotremont deleted. On the contrary, I want more articles on such "marginally notable" poets, and I want to see this article expanded. After all, I'm an inclusionist! When I look up something, I want it to be there! My touchstone is verifiability.

(To avoid misunderstandings: The specific example is entirely fictitious; neither article has been suggested for deletion.) --Lambiam^Talk 11:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote the first draft, I mentioned this essay to Jammo (SM247) and he pointed out its similarity to the common law concept of precedent and the inconsistent application of wikipedia policy and guidelines [1]. Perhaps this essay would be better as a single section in a broader essay on that topic. I glanced through the essays category, but couldn't find anything like that. Unless anyone can point out a similar essay in the next day or two, I'll write a rough draft.

Btw, I agree with Lambiam's point about WP:INCL being a little perverse. I'll change it to a soft redirect for now.--Chaser T 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy

Policy, however, is the remaining constant throughout these changes.

I thought policy changed, (albeit slightly) regularly.

Outdated analogy

1111111111 is now a redirect.--SeizureDog 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That analogy, while intelligently delineated, is I think unnecessarily esoteric. We can't come up with a more common-sense situation to compare notabilty to? Just the first sentence, a lot of people consider 5 to be encyclopedic, but 1111111 (however many ones there are) not to be, that just doesn't make very much sense on the face of it. New users trying to understand policy, especially the types of users that get pointed to this page, are going to be confused by that, as I certainly am. --Tractorkingsfan 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the section.--Chaser T 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The reverse is totally true

Non-inclusion is not an indicator of non-notability. Fact.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is incredibly subjective

and the encyclopedia should always err on the side of notability. The point of the notability guideline is not to spawn deletion battles, but to prevent the encyclopedia from being littered with spurious content.

Does that mean that inclusion should be considered an indicator of notability? Perhaps it should, if the inclusiveness is from diverse sources that are not shown to be related or coordinated. That means that multiple different individuals believed the topic to be notable. That arguably is an indicator of notability, albeit not an independently sourceable one.

It seems to me that if multiple, independently submitted defenses of an article as notable are present, that shows a likelihood of notability. The reasoning is, that just because an editor hasn't heard of something does not make it non-notable. If multiple, unrelated and uncoordinated other editors have heard of that something, then the value of the doubting editor's unfamiliarity is reduced. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)