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, 82, 83

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

The GNG text says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Why doesn't this include tertiary sources? I'd think that significant coverage in a tertiary source is also "objective evidence of notability." Also, "secondary sources" links to WP:PSTS, which says "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability...," so there's an inconsistency. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources can be used carefully. With notability we are looking for more than just simple facts but some type of transformation if information about a topic as to why it is considered worthy of note. Reference works (tertiary) often include everything under the sun when they act more as a primary work (like sports almanacs) , which may it may not include that type of transformative thoughts. So using a tertiary source as a source for notability should be used with a high degree of caution to make sure that it is providing the type of significant coverage we want to see. — Masem (t) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me examples of tertiary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masem gave you an example: sports almanacs. For others, see WP:TERTIARY. Largoplazo (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Masem said. Just adding a bit, "caution" includes consideration of the nature of the source and content including the transformative content. IMO for 98% of tertiary sources it falls short for GNG use and for the most of the other 2% (i.e. they have an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica) there are probably plenty of secondary GNG sources without needing to look at tertiary ones. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that tertiary sources are evidence of notability. In worst cases, they can be short and unreliable. Even in better cases, you don't get much more than a dictionary definition, which isn't enough for a separate article on our Encyclopedia. Tertiary sources might verify a fact or two, but without more, it probably belongs on a larger article. (In exceptional cases, anything with substantial coverage in a quality tertiary source will have similar coverage in secondary sources anyway.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the tertiary source. The keys to sourcing notability are depth of coverage and independence from the subject/topic. If a tertiary source has these two keys, I don’t see what the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm wondering if the GNG text should be altered a bit, saying something like "Sources should generally be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, but a tertiary source may be used if it includes transformative content and meets the other requirements of this section." The section already notes that all sources establishing notability must provide significant coverage, and be independent and reliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of "if it includes transformative content". We might worry about that for a primary source, but why would that be a worry for tertiary sources? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to incorporate Masem's and North8000's concerns. I'm not wedded to any particular wording. What would you suggest? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we stick with secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

The main concerns you voiced earlier would already lead the tertiary source to be excluded (e..g, "they can be short and unreliable" doesn't meet the RS standard, "you don't get much more than a dictionary definition" doesn't meet the significant coverage standard). As for your other case, "anything with substantial coverage in a quality tertiary source will have similar coverage in secondary sources anyway," so what? If an editor uses two secondary sources and a tertiary source that all meet the requirements, and the editor has access to the tertiary source and not to a third secondary source, why would you insist that they chase down a third secondary source? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Tertiary sources may also be used if they provide significant coverage? XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a distinct section addressing the need for significant coverage. As I think about this more, given that any source has to meet the other requirements of the GNG section (e.g., reliability, independence, significant coverage), I might say "Sources should generally be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, though a tertiary source may be used" or perhaps just switch to the language at PSTS: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

given that any source has to meet the other requirements of the GNG section (e.g., reliability, independence, significant coverage) This is the obvious interpretation, and the interpretation the vast majority of editors use, but as you've likely noticed, there is some minority (or maybe one vocal person...) who insists that a given source does not have to meet all of those criteria. There are also a baffling cohort of editors who interpret "significant" as being met by recognition in a prestigious source (regardless of coverage amount or depth) or by the implications of the coverage (e.g. they would consider the sentence "X is an esteemed Y whose importance cannot be overstated" to be SIGCOV). If we made it absolutely indisputably clear that each source needs to meet all criteria then I'd be more comfortable simply stating the PSTS blurb. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a work like a Who's Who compilation (ignoring the fact these usually are pay-to-include) which likely would be considered tertiary as a reference work. Most will include biographical details about a person, but they will all be surface-level details, reiterating the basics about the person's life, but likely will not get into reasons why that person is more worthy-of-note of any other person. All that type of information is non-transformative and while it could be taken as significant coverage, it remains a far weaker sources to rest notability compared to a secondary source that, via transformation of the basic facts, of why that person would be worthy-of-note.

Basically, there are a lot of topics that have detailed information that can be found in tertiary sources, but the type of information is straight facts and would be considered a primary source if published by itself. The transformation aspect of secondary sources, which some tertiary sources have, is what helps us ascertain notability. Masem (t) 13:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see the point of making this point, here. You could equally well argue against secondary sources, claiming correctly that many secondary sources just name-drop the subject of a BLP as the source of a quote about whatever else they're really talking about. It would be true. It would not be valid or relevant as an argument about why we should use tertiary sources instead. So why do you think it was important to make a point that some tertiary sources are not in-depth, as part of a discussion focused on how some people think we should avoid all tertiary sources in favor of secondary sources? How is it any more valid or relevant than the point that some secondary sources are not in-depth? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding overly blunt, all of this seems entirely beside the point. Superficiality would be a reason to exclude a secondary source from counting towards notability, too. (So would being pay-to-include.) In other words, you're comparing a hypothetical bad tertiary source against a hypothetical good secondary source. That's not a reason to dismiss all tertiary sources. If my print copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica that I've had since I was a child has an article about something, then the default expectation should be that Wikipedia has an article about it too. Indeed, I'd consider "Britannica has an article on this" as an all-but knockdown keep argument at AfD. (I say "all-but" because for organizational reasons we might go for a merge instead. Writing is complicated.)

Really, this whole debate seems to be a symptom of taking a distinction that we basically made up — or at the very least, one that we use in an idiosyncratic way, while pretending it is much more clear-cut than it really is — and treating it so seriously that we give ourselves a headache.

OK, time for me to check out of the bikeshed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the material provided by a source is short, unreliable, merely a dictionary definition, only verifying a fact or two, etc., then it's not going to count much towards notability, even if it's "secondary" instead of "tertiary". In other words, a good tertiary source has to meet the same qualifications as a good secondary source. XOR'easter (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No inconsistency. Tertiary sources are a subset of secondary sources, with any differences being within the noise that exists for case by case decisions on any particular source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true. Tertiary sources are built from a mix of primary and secondary sources, and could be entirely based on primary sources, like a dictionary. Masem (t) 04:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masem is right. It might be better to never mention tertiary sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion of just replacing this with the PSTS sentence
Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources., plus a footnote explaining why we should be cautious about tertiary sources, would be reasonable. Or, even better, just state outright that primary sources do not contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#c-FactOrOpinion-20250102151700-GNG_and_secondary_sources 37.111.189.185 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRV states The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest...

Meanwhile, NEXIST says The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources online or offline) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

Does this last sentence mean NEXIST overrides the "verifiable, objective evidence" requirement and instead obligates anyone who wishes to challenge a subject's notability to absolutely prove that it does not have SIGCOV somewhere? Does it mean if inaccessible sources of any quality (e.g. unevaluated Google search hits) are known or assumed by one editor to exist, the subject should not be deleted? Even if:

• We have no idea whether identified or hypothesized sources contain SIGCOV
• Identified sources are in fact extremely unlikely to contain SIGCOV as they are namechecks in table or list-type formats rather than prose
• The subject cannot be presumed to have garnered coverage through their accomplishments/value
• The subject's accomplishments/qualities are explicitly not considered presumptive for SIGCOV
• Other global consensuses have established requirements on the type of coverage the subject must have demonstrably received, and these criteria are objectively not met

JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only effect of NEXIST is to make it clear that the scope of the search for sources against which to evaluate a topic's notability is the world at large, not the References and External Links sections of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of "overriding". These two principles exist in tension with each other:

• Do not assume that if the sources aren't already cited, then none exist and so the article must be deleted. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Check your assumptions of non-existence.
• Do not blindly believe someone who shows up at AFD claiming "of course lots of great sources exist". Accept evidence, not hand-waving. (Though, honestly, JoelleJay, if you told me that lots of great sources exist, I would actually believe you and accept that as an indirect form of evidence. There are maybe a dozen or so editors I would unhesitatingly trust for such a statement.)

If you prefer a blunter way of putting it, NEXIST could be summarized as "AFDers should not be lazy" and NRVE could be summarized as "Closers should not be gullible". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding of it as well, but some editors deploy it for topics where, if there was to be coverage, it would likely be offline, and therefore the fact that we can't access those sources to disprove notability means we should assume SIGCOV exists, regardless of any other considerations about the topic's notability (such as it not meeting any criteria that presume coverage exists). JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of possibility in the last sentence is a bit confusing, it's a very vague wording. What exactly is meant by possibility, should editors ponder on the notion of what hyperthetical authors may have rwritten about the subject? I think I understand what is trying to be said, but it's not very well worded. That it's not only the sources in the article that need to be taken into account when judging notability, but "possibility or existence" is an odd way to put it. It could almost be taken to mean that is someone can think of a sources that could hyperthetically exist, then that source would count towards notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like many of these titbits it could probably been written more clearly using half the words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. And that would make it seem like it's calling from something more complicated than it actually is. Largoplazo (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More fully, "should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article". Which I think seems pretty unambiguously means, as I said earlier, "Don't assume that the sources you see in the article are the be-all and end-all of sources available for the subject, consider the possibility that sources supporting a finding of notability exist outside of the ones cited in the article." Which then places the obligation on the reviewer to look.

Like, 50 years ago, "When evaluating whether life on Earth is unique, consider not only the planets we know about [which, at the time, were the ones in our Solar System] but also the possibility or existence of life-bearing planets not part of the Solar System." I could be missing something, but I think you're making it out to be more complicated than it is. Largoplazo (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or trying to solve a problem that exists between keyboard and chair instead of a problem that exists in the guideline. If one or the other resonates with you more, then you might find it very frustrating to interact with people who hold the opposite view. Even if you have an undisputed set of facts (e.g., JoelleJay and I have opposite views on an Olympic athlete from a developing country where English isn't widely spoken, at a point in time when the internet was basically unavailable to the general public), it is time-consuming to negotiate with other editors over whether it's best to do "your" way (whichever way that is) in the particular instance. It would be ever so much quicker if the rules simply said that if editors reasonably expect sources to exist, but they can't prove it (e.g., because the reasonably expected sources are expected to be offline), then the ____ side automatically wins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing "...consider the possibility that sources supporting a finding of notability exist outside of the ones cited in the article" has generally been taken to mean sourced identified on the talk page or in a AFD or similar discussion that is clearly linked via the talk page, but not yet incorporated in the article. Those sources are evidence beyond what is included in the article, and while we want editors to include them, there's no deadline as long as they are there. Masem (t) 02:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not what we meant when we wrote it (e.g., this addition in 2009, which I believe was the first time this concept entered the guideline). We meant something a lot closer to "if you're going to nominate an article or vote for its deletion, then use your favorite web search engine first, because frankly we're tired of lazy noms asking us to google everything for you". Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation started a few days later.

I don't even think that a claim that it's just about what's posted on wiki makes sense as a plain reading of the sentence. It's a long sentence:

"Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."

So this is addressed to AFD folks, not to article creators; it points directly to AFD's WP:BEFORE, and it says you should "attempt to find sources", which is something we normally do off wiki. This is telling people that they're screwing up if a little Let me Google that for you response proves the nomination and deletion votes to be based on sloppy work or lazy comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, based on things like the changes of NSPORT, we've moved away from the "probability of sources existing", unless that has been established through an SNG criteria ("if topic meets this, there is a good chance for sources to exist."); for topics outside the areas an SNG covers, we expect clear evidence of sources.

The GNG wording does establish that if you have some demonstrated secondary sources with significant coverage, that you can presume notability and that other sources may exist. That's still a presumption that can be challenged, and that facet would not be accepted an AFD where a reasonable BEFORE has been done and no one arguing to !keep has brough forward sources. Masem (t) 04:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many attitudes and beliefs in the community have changed since 2009. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD you need to show evidence that sources exists. If this is currently meant to stop editors making poor or bad faith nominations that should be dealt with by guidance on editors behaviour, as it's disruptive editing, rather than here. What should be here is that articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion solely based on the sources currently in the article, and that at AfD articles shouldn't be judged solely by the sources in the article. That could be said a lot more simply and a lot more clearly than the current wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see you re-write it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will sometimes be guesswork. I understand a lot of people want these guidelines to be bright-line objective tests with no dispute. The only way to guarantee an article is to pass all our policy requirements (WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT...) with flying colors.

For everything else, it might still pass if editors convince each other that any issues can be fixed. This is the point of WP:NEXIST. For example, if someone finds significant coverage in a non-English language source, then there's a decent probability that more good sources might exist. As with any speculation, the probability goes down the longer that you wait without any success. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of many types of articles where it makes sense to weigh the possibility of 'hypothetically existing' sources at AfD, i.e. ones that cannot be specifically named right now but could be in future:

1. Articles on topics very likely to have been covered in offline sources that nobody in the AfD can reasonable check right now, e.g. a settlement which likely has newspapers and local history sources about it in the local library, but nobody lives close enough to check

2. Articles where a source search turns up titles or abstracts in the catalogue of an offline collection (library, archive, etc.) that sound like they contain significant coverage of the topic, but we can't be sure without physically checking them

3. Articles on topics where the majority of sources can be expected to not be in English or another language not widely accessible to AfD regulars (though automated translation is making this less and less common)

4. Articles where searches turn up such a vast number of potential sources that we can't realistically search through them for significant coverage, but the shear volume implies that it is likely to be there, e.g. academics whose work has been cited thousands or tens of thousands of times

5. Articles on some future event that has not been written much about yet but almost certainly will be, e.g. the Olympics in 12 years' time

I have seen all of these types of AfDs many times, and that's what I interpret the last sentence of WP:NEXIST as referring to. It's not a question of abandoning the requirement "verifiable, objective evidence" but being pragmatic and assessing the likelihood that a handful of English-speaking volunteer Wikipedians are able to properly evaluate that requirement within a week. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This answer is helpful enough to be the basis for an essay, if not part of the guideline itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Points one through four are issues that should be resolved by a proper BEFORE step, that is, the onus on the one seeking deletion to make sure they have not overlooked possible sources that may be offline, etc, or to sift through a large number of search results to find the specific topic. If anything, that makes me think that BEFORE is how you best demonstrate that you have tried to consider what other sources may exist and failed to find anything. — Masem (t) 15:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's not clear to some AFD noms is that "a proper BEFORE step" includes using their judgment.

I saw a nom recently (i.e., I saw it this calendar year) who got some pushback on the decision to take an article to AFD. It's the kind of subject for which you should assume that sources probably exist. His reply was that he'd clicked all the buttons in {{find sources}} and didn't see anything that looked like SIGCOV, so that was "a proper BEFORE step". He never thought that "a proper BEFORE step" might involve adjusting your search process to the subject matter (e.g., turning off Google preferences for English-only results if the subject isn't from an English-speaking country, checking medical literature if it's a medical subject, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's impractical to ask an editor to visit a library every time an article is in dispute. There has to be some reasonable room for inference. An important factor is whether the article has been tagged for sources for an extended period of time (months, if not years). It also helps if it wasn't tagged by the nominator, which indicates that more than one editor believes that the article is faulty. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think some editors dislike allowing "reasonable room for inference". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, many of those are reasonable situations, though as Masem said these should be resolved through BEFORE. But what about topics that do not meet or partially meet an SNG (your first example would be covered by NGEO) and do not have any evidence of coverage that could plausibly be significant? NEXIST doesn't distinguish between SNG-meeting/highly-presumptive topics and those with no real claim to notability, so if it does exempt topics from showing verifiable evidence of coverage even when challenged at AfD, then how can anyone rebut an NEXIST assertion? And what about situations where a substantial number of inaccessible-to-most sources (e.g. niche institutional access, non-Latin alphabet) have been evaluated without turning up SIGCOV, but not every possible source has been looked at? This has been happening at dozens of AfDs and dePRODs recently. JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language is clear: notability is separate from the citations currently in the article. In practice, it also means those claiming sources exist must demonstrate where they are likely to be found if they are not currently present in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the complexity of wp:notability being a fig fuzzy ecosystem, there is the complexity of writing guidelines that try to deal with the whole spectrum of AFD'ers. From the most extreme deletionists through active NPP'ers where a handful of reviewers needs to handle 95% of the reviewing of firehose of new articles / current 14,000 article backlog in their available wiki minutes. IMO, for GNG-dependent articles, the standard should be a good faith few-minute web search. After that it should be dependent on those advocating "keep" to find and include GNG sources for the customary degree of GNG compliance. Note that for highly enclyclopedic articles, the customary degree of GNG compliance is something less that 100% compliance with a strict interpretation of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good faith few-minute web search, including in the local language, should be enough BEFORE for GNG-dependent articles. But [some people's interpretation of] NEXIST makes it seem like even this isn't enough to switch the onus onto NRVE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole spectrum includes both ends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree as it is completely topic dependent. For instance there was a very old football league recently at AfD, and a good faith web search mentioned here wouldn't bring anything up, but a historical newspaper search brings up the fact it was covered by many different 19th century newspapers. This is why older Olympians were a problem - once we actually started doing the research to show that many of them were never significantly covered, even using a lower historical standard, the SNG collapsed. At the same time, we still need to be able to use common sense even if SIGCOV isn't strictly met for topics outside the Anglosphere. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about that whole spectrum of AFDers, I wonder if WP:NEXIST should remind people of that intermediate step, the {{notability}} tag. An AFD on a weakly sourced article with an equally weak BEFORE search is much more sympathetic if the article has been tagged as having doubtful notability for several years.

On some of these niche subjects (e.g., all Olympic athlete stubs from Jordan, by an editor who speaks no Arabic and searches no Jordanian sources), it would also be more sympathetic if you make a list of "bad" articles and deliver them to relevant WikiProjects with a note like "It's January now. I think all of these are candidates for deletion. But I know I can't read Arabic, and I know it's a hundred articles, so I'd like to give you extra time. I'll come back in a hundred days and start sending one per day to AFD for anything that doesn't have a new source added." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never AFD'd an article except under NPP work, so my experience is somewhat centric on that. On articles that are only a few months old, there are more options including tagging or draftifying. When an article has been in the que for a long time, it's typically been tagged (or looked at) already and there are really only two options....give it a final OK, or AFD it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this above, but this is part of the calculus too. Tagging it and giving it time is an important intermediate step. Especially if other editors are brought into the process. Then an AFD is much more reasonable. Could they still be wrong? Maybe. But I'm less likely to believe WP:NEXIST for an article that has been tagged for multiple years... Even less likely if multiple editors have come to the same conclusion, between the tag, the talk page, and the AFD itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor deleted had referenced entries onto the above named list. The list is a fork from the main page Hamilton Academy. I have reverted the edit and asked for a consensus be discussed at the Talk page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been prompted by an assumption that "notable" means "blue linked". Perhaps someone would be interested in glancing through WP:N to see if we address that distinction directly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This question is regarding the notability of Indian Film producers (Example: C. R. Manohar) and Indian film production companies (Example: KVN Productions). From what I have seen in the last few years, any film producer seems to automatically become notable if their film wins a Best Film award, as wiki editors generally credit the producer and director for it. When it comes to film production companies, which I believe fall under NCORP, articles are often created when two to three films produced by the company have their own articles.

• Are these films attributed to the production house in terms of establishing notability?
• Is the coverage of these films used to establish the notability of the production house?
• If so, does this mean every production company with a couple of films will have its own article?
• Is the coverage and notability of a film inherited to establish the notability of its production company?

Note: The above examples have nothing to do with the scenario, they have been randomly picked from their respective categories. In many cases, the production company itself may not have any information available about it rather only about its films. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For businesses, the only thing that matters is whether you have independent reliable sources that discuss the business in detail (WP:CORPDEPTH). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will obviously have independent, reliable reviews of the films they have produced. The question here is whether these reviews count towards GNG when establishing notability for a production house. It would be great if you could be more precise here, as reviews and other sources generally discuss the film rather than the production house itself. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Notability is not inherited. If there are no reliable sources putting forth "significant detail" on the production companies themselves, an article on them cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 10:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Can you provide examples of independent, reliable reviews for film companies? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not expect a "review" for a company; film reviews are for the films themselves. Two examples of an independent, secondary source that demonstrates reliability for a film company is David A. Price's book, The Pixar Touch (for Pixar) and Steven Bingen's The MGM Effect: How a Hollywood Studio Changed the World (for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer).

Less famous studios are less likely to have whole books written about them, but magazine articles with a similar focus on the business are equally acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, with respect to WP:PRODUCER, can an individual have an article if they have successfully produced two films that pass WP:NFILM? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like the word "Indian" in the title of this section. Notability should not depend on where a company is based. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The number of press articles generated for Indian media companies and the number of production company articles that were kept on AfD for producing notable films(editor consensus > policy based arguments) are, I believe a lot higher than the rest of the world, which is why I mentioned Indian. Or maybe it was a one-off instance that happened long ago and I am remembering it wrong. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 81#Notability of a group of articles about lists inside Category:Military comparisons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an article does not meet the guidelines, should I delete it? BroBro12345 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete it. You can nominate it for proposed deletion or start a deletion discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be conflating "notability" with "sourced". We all know that articles should be well sourced. But just because statements in an article can be independently and reliably sourced, doesn't mean the subject is notable. Reading through this article, I'm more confused than when I started. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't conflating things so much as inventing its own idiosyncratic definition for the word "notable". If you pretend the words "notable" and "notability" don't already exist in English and resist the intuitive associations you'd make for those words based on the ordinary meanings of "note", "-able", and "-ability", it may help.

As for why it's this way, I guess it's because Jimmy Wales et alia knew the criteria they wanted to apply and didn't already have a word available for them so they co-opted an existing one. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this guideline is about things being "sourced". For some reason, editors decided to call this guideline "notability", in the sense that something "sourced" is also "noted". There are perennial efforts to rename this guideline to be more clear, but it is hard to change something that has been in place for more than a decade. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chime in, notability isn't a yes or no question, instead rather a likelihood. Every subject appears as on a continuum. I prefer to use the phrase "sufficiently notable" or "sufficiently sourced to meet NOTE". A very good way of learning about GNG and SNG is to read or participate in WP:Articles for deletion procedures where such disagreement is hashed out in case-by-case using varying tagged examples. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If a subject is noted then it is definitely and indisputably notable. If a subject isn't noted in practice, it could still be potentially noted in the sense that we just need to find the sources that note it. Hence notability. (I still think our terminology creates unnecessary confusion, but it's not completely baseless.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" is a characteristic of the topic, while "sourced" is a characteristic of the state of an article or draft at a moment in time usually called "now", Ghost writer's cat. It is quite common to encounter poorly sourced articles about clearly notable topics, where plenty of reliable sources offering significant coverage of the topic can be easily found with a couple of minutes of competent search engine work. Poor sourcing in itself is not persuasive evidence that the topic is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the term "notability" be replaced with the term "suitability" (as in "a suitable topic") or "eligibility" (as in "an eligible topic"), over a transitional period, in order to reduce newcomer confusion? During the three-month transitional period, the new term would be mentioned as an alternative. Then, it would replace the old term in policies and guidelines, and "notability" would be mentioned as an alternative. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many prior discussions have occurred, but recently see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#"Eligibility",_"Suitability",_or_"Admissibility"_instead_of_"Notability" and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_61#Describing_Notability_in_plain_English Mrfoogles (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus, Sheriff U3, Jéské Couriano, and JPxG: Fixing pings. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: missed one. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous discussion participants: @DroneBogus @WhatamIdoing @Sherriff U3, @Chaotic Enby @CMD @Jlwoodwa @Donald Albury @Aaron Liu @Masem @LightNightLights @Blueboar @BD2412 @Davidstewartharvey @Anomie @Shushugah @Jeské Couriano @GreenMeansGo Mrfoogles (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000 @Kusma @Enos733 @SmokeyJoe @Hydrangeans @TheDJ @Elemimele @Folly Mox @ActivelyDisinterested @Joe Roe @The Four Deuces @Shooterwalker @Alanscottwalker @jpxg @LaukkuTheGreit @Chetsford Mrfoogles (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support suitability as nom. This change will be difficult, but in the words of @WhatamIdoing, 'the question is: Twenty years from now, do I want editors to still be explaining "Yes, I see you have a reliable source using the exact words 'Alice Author is a notable new author', but that doesn't mean she's WP:Notable according to Wikipedia"? My answer is no." With the transitional period this will be possible -- see a demo of what this would look like once completed and it would significantly improve newcomer experience and the experience of experienced editors at AFD. It's very easy to mistakenly argue an author is notable based on their achievements, but it is very difficult to mistakenly argue an author is "suitable" or "eligible" just because they have published so many books, without thinking to read the criteria. Similar to how French wikipedia changed the name of their AFD from essentially "Articles for deletion" to "Discussions of admissibility", which significantly helped there, this change would greatly improve the accessibility and maintainability of this encyclopedia, and despite changing something that has been around a long time, is worth doing. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One other objection to this proposal has been arguments that WP:NOT is not included in notability, but still causes articles to be deleted for the encyclopedia, so "suitability" would not always guarantee an article. However, neither does notability now -- and I believe that having to clarify not all suitable topics will get an article due to minor factors is orders of magnitude better, if it comes up at all, than having to explain to every new editor why their subject is not notable. This argument, however, is why I support suitability over eligibility, as well as the fact that it sounds closer to notability and represents less of a change. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer "Criteria for Article Creation." At present, many editors type in WP:NOTABLE as an argument for keeping an article without explaining which part of the policy applies. TFD (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a good alternative that I wouldn't object too.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A separate page for that title makes sense, but notability in practice is only one of the criteria that is required. It is the wrong impression to say notability (relabeled as this CAC) is the only criteria. Masem (t) 18:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What other criteria are there? TFD (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Four Deuces: WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E, and there may be others I can't remember off the top of my head. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't they just qualifications of WP:NOTABLE? For example BLP1E says that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." WP:NOTABLE says, "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

  Can you think of any article that WP:NOTABLE would allow creation, but some other policy would stop? TFD (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Thompson (businessman) is a good example where the person's bio just skimmed the bare bones for significant coverage from WP:N (including events outside of his death), but ultimate failed BLP1E, or more specifically BLPVICTIM. WP:N can allude to BLP, but the specifics of where BLP can fail should be at BLP, not spelled out at WP:N. Masem (t) 14:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BLP1E seems to be a specific set of cases supplemental to Sustained that is common enough to warrant its own section on another page combined with WP:Not. (quoting myself). As TFD specifically mentioned, that is part of WP:N. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support for suitability As it makes people think suitable for what? What is suitable for a article? Is what I want to add suitable per Wikipedia polices? It would be a lot easier to explain to a new user what suitability polices are then what notability polices are. Just because of their initial reaction/thoughts are when they hear/read the word. Other polices would also go into suitability as they also have an effect on whether or not an article is suitable for inclusion. The change would be of great benefit over time even though older users would have to adjust, but that is why there will be a 3 month transitional period. We can't just look at the short term drawbacks, we also need to look at the long term benefits. As a newer user myself I found it strange that we use notability when I first started editing. I have gotten used to it, but I think it would be good to change it now and reap the benefits for years and years down the road. Because lets face it Wikipedia needs new editors all the time to replace the old ones that have left Wikipedia. Other wise Wikipedia will only survive as long as the current editors live. So although there will be some pain in the change it will become as if there was never a change in a few years. People will look back on this in 10, 20 years and wonder why there was so much push back because it will be second nature to them. Also this would not remove notability it would keep it as an alternative to suitability. Which would mean that older users could still use it. It would just be preferable to use suitability. If we wait to find a one-to-one word match for what we define notability as on Wikipedia then we will have to makeup a word. And making up a word would have the draw back of having to explain to everyone what that word means. This way we get suitability, a word that matches very closely to what everyone outside of Wikipedia defines suitability as. And how many times outside of Wikipedia do you use notability in the terms you use it on Wikipedia? Whereas suitability gets used outside of Wikipedia in a similar way that notability does on Wikipedia. It may not be a perfect match, but what would be a perfect match outside of creating our own word? Make the change now and receive the benefits for years or wait till the next generation says "Why did our fathers (mothers) think this word was a good match for Wikipedia?". We also could extent the transitional time frame to be longer if it is needed to help people get used to the new terms.
  Sheriff U3 19:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Suitability, or Eligibility. As per the discussion at Village pump, either words meaning are closer to what we mean on Wikipedia than the confusing phrase that is Notability.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose as per my comments in the linked discussion. These words are not one-for-one replacements for "notability" and would create the same if not more confusion due to bad application of defined terms that trying to replace "notability" would solve. Namely, the three suggested terms all imply a black or white pass/fail type test, where notability itself (in its real world definition) still suggests that there's a spectrum of how much notability a topic can have (and as applied to WP's definition, how well a topic meets the GNG or an SNG). Further, notability in practice is not the only criteria we use to decide if a topic should have a standalone page, we also use NOT, the other content policies, BLP, and others. There is room on WP to have a page about the eligibility or suitability of a topic but which would incorporate the tests that should applied (does it meet a GNG or SNG? Does the topic not violate WP:NOT? etc.) and in which case makes the practice of evaluating those tests and calling the topic eligible or suitable for a article match what those terms mean in the real world, but they are not effective substitutions for the word of "notability" nor how notability is actually practiced. I'd also add that we just had a discussion on renaming notability six months ago, and in fact this tends to be PEREN discussion; until we find a word that is a true one-for-one and still upholds a real-world definition, any substitution will elimination one problem and introduce another, so there needs to be a really strong reason to do this. Masem (t) 18:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree it will introduce another small problem (e.g. other criteria exist in relatively rare cases), but I think this fixes more problems than it solves, especially for newcomers creating articles, who are important for recruitment. That’s why I think it’s worth it. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Solution in search of a problem. The term "notability" is well-established in the wiki jargon and this would cause totally unnecessary chaos. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is:

  • Too many newcomers don't know that Wikipedia:Notability is not the same as wikt:notability.

  The fact that it is "well-established" among ~0.0001% of the world's population does not mean that the jargon is legible.

  I also doubt that it would cause any sort of "chaos". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've never been convinced by this line of reasoning - I don't see our definition of notability as a fundamentally different concept from that - the definition of wikt:notable is Worthy of note; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished. The only requirement we add on top of that is restrictions on who is doesn't the noting, which doesn't overwrite the entire concept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As per the definition in Cambridge Oxfird Dictionary: Notability - important and deserving attention, because of being very good or interesting. However in Wikipedia, when we mean notability it is more than that. We are looking this to be evidenced by independent third party references. So therefore the word Notability is wrong. Suitability is probably better as it covers both as the meaning is: the fact of being acceptable or right for something or someone. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To me it seems clear that our "notability" is more of how to semi-objectively quantify real-world "notability" by the demonstration of existing or likelihood of significant coverage (the core tenet of the GNG and most SNGs). It's not the exact same definition but its very closely related.

  And we do expect new editors to spend a bit of time to read and understand P&G before jumping into discussions on WP namespace. That a novice editor did not spend the 5 minutes to read what we mean by notability is really not our fault, but that of the editor for not familiarizing themselves. (Of course, I come from the mantra on the internet was "lurk and listen" before participating, while today people want instant gratification and jump into things before they fully understand it. Masem (t) 20:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm regularly explaining to newbies that by "notable" we generally mean "noted" -- not worthy of note, but already having gained note from appropriate sources. However, I'm not sure that the replacement words suggested really have advantage over it. "Suitable", for example, carries overtones of moral propriety, something that tawdry topics would not meet... but we do want those tawdry topics as long as they are, y'know, notable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  New participants who don't know the meanings of guidelines are generally drawn when their article is up for deletion, and they want to keep it. Someone who doesn't know the meaning of suitability is unlikely (or at least far more unlikely than the current popularity of "keep cuz it's famous") to find a deletion discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me list from my collection of dictionaries the meaning of notable and notability:

  • Remarkable - from Nelson's Webster's New Compact Dictionary ISBN 0-8407-4081-6
  • Worth noticing or paying attention to; remarkable; outstanding (a notable statesman; a notable success). A notable person. - from Webster's New World Dictionary: Basic School Edition by The World Publishing Company ©1971 (could not find the ISBN)
  • A notable or prominent person. Worthy of note: Remarkable : Distinguished, Prominent. Efficient or capable in performance of housewifely duties. - from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Eleventh Edition) (The page with copyright date and ISBN is missing sadly. It was ripped out at some point.)
  • 1 Remarkable; worthy of notice; memorable; observable; distinguished or noted (They bore two or three charges from the horse with notable courage.) (Two young men of notable strength.). 2 Active; industrious; careful; as a notable woman. (In both senses, this word is obsolete in elegant style, or used only in irony. The second sense is in colloquial use in New England.) 3 In Scripture, conspicuous; sightly; as a notable horn. 4 Notorious. 5 Terrible. 6 Known or apparent. In France, the nobles or persons of rank and distinction were formerly called notables. A thing worthy of observation. - from Noah Webster's First Edition of An American Dictionary of the English Language (facsimile edition) ISBN 978-0-912498-03-4

  (I listed them in the order that I picked them up from the shelf.) Sheriff U3 20:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Complicated is that WP:N does not explicitly even require a certain amount of sources. So when editors in good faith get told they need to find more sources (e.g WP:GOLDEN RULE) those are practices/guidelines, but the actual policy is incredibly vague and gives a more philosophical phrase presumed notability. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding is that you need 3 RS to have a chance at creating the article without it getting denied or deleted. But that might be some where else in the polices. Sheriff U3 20:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not in any of them, because it's not actually true. That idea probably came you, via our inaccurate telephone game, from User:RoySmith/Three best sources. WP:THREE is an editor's personal essay, but it's not really about the minimum; it's about the maximum that he's willing to seriously investigate during an AFD discussion.

  The minimum necessary to be cited in a Wikipedia article is zero. The minimum necessary to exist in the real world is one. But that one would really have to be amazing; it's far, far more likely that the real world needs at least two, and more would be much more convincing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh interesting, the things you learn. Well thanks for the heads up. Sheriff U3 20:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, I cannot see an article with zero sources would survive a WP:V or WP:NOR challenge, even if it manages to pass an SNG. (now, saying "cited in the article" with the understanding that sources identified on a talk page or a AFD or similar discussion that just need incorporation into the article is an acceptable but non-ideal situation, but having no such articles at all identified anywhere is the problem) Masem (t) 21:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned above the problem is what happens at almost every AfD discussion when the article was started by an inexperienced editor —- they argue their subject is obviously notable because they’re important. The idea is that suitability is a more fitting name and would prevent at least half of the confused newcomers from becoming confused. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle. I prefer eligibility over suitability. I think that the proposed three-month transition period is too short by about five years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be okay with extending it, although maybe more like one year? Mostly as we’d be halfway there if both were allowed, anyway. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be helpful to change the opening sentence to something like:

  "On Wikipedia, notability, or eligibility, is a test used by editors..."

  It could also be useful to change it to something like:

  On Wikipedia, notability is the article creation criteria that editors..."

  It's my experience that it takes people a really long time to notice even major changes to policies and guidelines. I've had the experience of changing a policy, and then two years later, an editor will quote my own words back to me, as if I didn't know what the policy says. So realistically, if we make this change, we should assume that almost nothing will actually change (e.g., in the way that editors talk to each other) for a couple of years.

  Also, making a thorough job of it would take that long because there are so many places (e.g., welcome templates) that use this language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What Pppery said. GMG^talk 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the reasons stated above, especially User:Pppery. Also, a RfC on something this important should be advertised on the village pump. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been advertised on the village pump in the ideas lab area. That is where a lot of this was discussed. Sheriff U3 19:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I added it to T:CENT. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I added it to the Policy section and the Proposals section. Is there somewhere I missed? Mrfoogles (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose OP is well-intentioned but IMHO that's a bit misguided. The alternatives proposed so far ignore the fact that notability is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion for article creation. Masem has it right. There is simply no better word to describe the need for the article to be based on at least a couple of good sources. I also disagree with WhatamIdoing because a novice should eventually learn that the users themselves aren't supposed to say what is notable/"important enough". It's not the question of terminology confusion, it's more a question of being unaware of the rules on which Wikipedia operates. Not a bad thing in itself, but if you mean to seriously contribute, as in creating a new article from scratch, you would be better off at least reading the gist of the rules - we shouldn't expect much from newbies but they will have to confront the rules either way so we might just as well direct them to a family-friendly summary. They don't include notability, but that's a derivative of sorts from the verifiability principles. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for several reasons. First, I don't agree that it is that hard to understand. I picked it up pretty quickly when I first joined back in 2023. If you simply read the policy page, it explains it quite clearly. I also find the dictionary argument unconvincing. Second, the new names have their own issues. Calling this "suitability" or "eligibility" would imply that this is the only concern for whether something has an article, which is untrue. We also have rules like NOT that affect suitability, and this name change would ignore that. Finally, I think that this is a lot more effort than it is worth for a semantic change, especially since we would still need to explain our "suitability" or "eligibility" requirements. Changing the name wouldn't change that.
  TLDR, this is more trouble than it is worth, it causes problems, and I don't agree that the issues cited by the OP are actually issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @QuicoleJR, since WP:N incorporates those "rules like NOT" right in the lead, I'm not sure how changing the page title would ignore that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It mentions them once and then ignores them for the rest of the page. That one easily missable sentence doesn't change the fact that the entire rest of the page talks exclusively about GNG and the SNGs. Also, there are other requirements for inclusion, like BLP1E, that aren't mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle. I generally prefer suitability over eligibility. I do think there may be better ways to articulate that a stand-alone page is not necessarily desirable for many subjects. --Enos733 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Eligibility makes it sound like something that's set in stone. Notability isn't a policy. I don't think the notability guidelines are hard to understand now as it is. Most newbies who are "confused" usually have a COI and don't want to understand the rules anyway. I'm not sure altering the name to eligibility is going to change that. The main issue is that newbies don't understand what "significant coverage" means. And with the move away from SNGs in recent years, it's harder for beginners to figure out what's notable. "Suitability" is far better though if this does end up changing. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change to "article creation criteria" or something straightforward that makes clear that the notability guidelines describe what types of articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. The idea that it's not confusing to take a word in common usage and give it an entirely new definition is ridiculous on its face. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As an aside, we really do need to significantly reduce the length and complexity of all of the notability guidelines. There is no reason that we need to have pages and pages on notability with random criteria and muddy carve-outs. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Suitability is also fine if consensus develops for that. I don't like eligibility for the same reason as AD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  voorts, I think this problem is kinda everywhere in policies and guidelines. I have created a shortened version of content policies and guidelines at User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content. I don't guarantee you'd like it, but I tried my best and I'm open to feedback. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I like this suggested alternative, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Switching to "article creation criteria" is an interesting idea, but has a couple downsides. I think it would get shortened in almost every discussion to ACC, which 1) is less clear to newbies than the word "notability", and 2) WP:ACC has been used by something else for 20 years (since 2006). –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on suitability, Oppose eligibility. There's something I don't like about 'eligibility', it almost makes it sound like it's something you achieve or win. Suitability sounds better, as it suggests the opposite - that articles exist for Wikipedia's purposes. Even given that though I wonder if this is worthwhile, it's a change that will cause extensive changes. I'm unsure that the benefits it might bring are worth the work it will cause. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if part of the problem is that editors have different cultural connotations about the words being discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for eligibility or suitability or Article creation criteria (albeit bit long) our current wording of 'notability' WP:BITEs newbies with its pretentious and Wikilawyer terminology that defies common usage of the term. So much could be saved if editors knew that certain topics are eligible or not, regardless of their real world notability (viral celebrities, mission critical paper-manufacturers, etc...) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning oppose to the proposed options. I would go with something like Encyclopedicness. BD2412 T 20:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's how Polish Wikipedia names notability. The problem is, Polish doesn't really have a good alternative name that isn't awkward, and besides, defining "encyclopedicness" could be reasonably seen as saying what belongs in an encyclopedia (full stop), and yet pl.wiki has its own version of WP:NOT. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  “Suitability” is sort of intended to get close to that. I don’t disagree a term in that direction would be good —- the phrase I like is “suitable for Wikipedia”, which is similar in meaning Mrfoogles (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as busywork and bikeshedding. The proposed terminology (which there is not even a consensus about what it even is) does not significantly improve on existing terminology, would potentially confuse and annoy many longstanding contributors, and require a ton of unnecessary work to implement. Dronebogus (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is it would also remove a lot of annoyance by helping to educate newbies who annoy experienced contributors at AFD —- it’s not bikeshedding unless there are bigger changes you should be focusing on, which there aren’t —- those are discussed in other RfCs Mrfoogles (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed - While I agree that the term “Notability” can sometimes be confusing for newcomers, it isn’t that hard to explain. And once explained, most editors get it.
  Sure, if I could go back in time to when we created the guideline I might have suggest “Notedness” as being closer to what we are talking about than “Notability”… but I wouldn’t have pushed super hard for that.
  That said, I do not think the suggested alternatives accurately sum up what we are talking about in the guideline. They would also cause confusion for new editors trying to understand what we are looking for. Finally, the idea of performing some sort of “phased in” name change is simply going to result in yet more confusion. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing wrong with the current system. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The issue is more complex, and this is just a step towards a resolution. But perfection is the enemy of progress. Also this will need more complex refinement than just considering it to be the final word on every detail in the RFC. @Masem:'s idea of a meta "suitability" page would provide an even better framework for the big solution, but again. perfection is the enemy of progress. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that WP:N is supposed to be that "meta" page. Perhaps we should re-visit the idea of splitting the GNG out to its own page, so that people might eventually stop conflating the GNG with WP:N (ARTN, NRVE, NEXIST, NTEMP, SUSTAINED, NOPAGE, WHYN, FAILN, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we want a meta page now, it would be best to start with that as an Essay to get it in place, and then work it up to be a guideline (it would not be policy as it would be more prescriptive than descriptive) Masem (t) 21:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem: Wanna work on that? North8000 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: We do have a mini version of such a meta-page (mis)placed in the wp:notability lead. And the reality is that the community already does follow the proposed non-existent meta page. Decisions that are labelled "notability" already include criteria that are not in or not acknowledged in the notability guidelines. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What criteria are not in WP:N? NOT is already acknowledged in WP:N. BLP is already acknowledged in WP:N.

  Did you mean "not in the SNGs or the GNG, ignoring the rest of WP:N"? I would agree with that, but I think that argues for moving the GNG to its own page, and making this existing guideline be that meta-page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: The SNGs assist in implementing the putative meta-page. The unacknowledged criteria that are included in ostensible "notability" decisions are degree of enclyclopedicness (degree of compliance with wp:not) and to a lesser extent, real world notability/significance/impact. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The degree of compliance with NOT is right there in WP:N.

  Real-world significance is something we have always disclaimed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's only a small amount of content on WP:N that is not related to meeting the GNG and SNG. Ignoring that, and excluding the content specific to the GNG (which about half of what would be left) is then trying to establish a few other aspects still related to notability, the relation between the GNG and SNGs, notability is not a requirement for a standalone, and notability does not specifically apply to content, among other aspects. It doesn't make sense to separate the GNG stuff from all this other stuff, as you'd still be left with a page about notability in general. Again, my suggestion would be better to expand to an essay (to start) about the eligibility or suitability of a topic for WP, which includes WP:N, NOT, BLP , etc. as well as the fact that even if all these are met, topics may still be deleted or merged by consensus-driven actions at AFD or elsewhere.

  In that fashion if we have a new editor questioning why their topic is being deleted, we can point to the eligibility/suitability page, where it would then be clear notability is a measure under that. To the RFC's introductory point, we'd then would like to have experienced editors, when helping newer editors, understand that a topic was not eligible (per that essay page) likely for not meeting notability aspects, rather than simply saying the topic was not notable. That's not going to 100% remove the apparent confusion that our def of notability is not the same as the real-world, but framing that notability is a criteria for being eligible or suitable for an article would help to clear up some of that. Masem (t) 23:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would work! Great idea, we could start on a draft for it, if we did not want to publish it right away. I would be willing to help with it if we were to start on it. Sheriff U3 23:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did a search of WP:Suitability and found WP:ROC. Sheriff U3 23:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While "notability" does lead to some incorrect assumptions from inexperienced users, I don't see "eligibility" or "suitability" as not also having similar problems (in type if not direction). These names would work better for a guideline or essay that points out the existence of WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and other guidelines and policies that together all determine whether a topic is eligible or suitable for an article. Something like "notedness" would probably be a real improvement on the situation, although it sounds more awkward. Anomie⚔ 21:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I agree that our definition of "notability' is a lot more specific than the general meaning of the word, it is, regardless, intuitive and does capture the essence of our inclusion criteria. The term includes the meaning of what we are trying to say and most people will, except at the margins, understand what is notable and what is not without having to read the policy pages. Suitability and eligibility, on the other hand, are less intuitive and is divorced from our inclusion criteria. Without reading the criteria, editors will have no idea what is suitable or eligible. RegentsPark (comment) 21:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegentsPark: You put this in the wrong section. That RFC is in the talk page section below this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @QuicoleJR: Thanks (and moved)!RegentsPark (comment) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Without reading the criteria, editors will have no idea what is suitable or eligible. This seems to be one of the reasons behind the changes; to make it clear article creation works through criteria rather than through an editor's feel for what is notable to them. CMD (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Any topic is "eligible" for inclusion on Wikipedia. Any topic is "suitable" for inclusion on Wikipedia. Not every topic is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is only suitable for inclusion if it meets all of the polices. I could say the same thing about notability in the way you put it. "Every topic is notable notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, because I know about it and think it is notable." You see it works both ways. That is why it defines what is suitable for inclusion, based off of current policy. Sheriff U3 21:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Pppery. This is just going to make things more confusing for everyone and waste much more time. It's going to make things more time-consuming and frustrating, and its value is minuscule. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The value over time would be worth it. Think about the next 10, 15, 20 years not the immediate future, other wise no changes would ever happen because it is "too hard" in fact Wikipedia would never have been created because it is "too hard" to make an encyclopedia from scratch. The question you should be asking is if there is anyone willing to make the changes. In which case I would be willing to implement these name changes. And what is so confusing about this? All it is just a simple name change. The value to long-term editors is small, but the value to new and future editors is huge. Plus it would save time on trying to explain to new users about what Wikipedia means by notable, whereas suitability already carries a similar meaning that fluctuates depending on where and what it is in real life. Sheriff U3 22:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: There's two decades' worth of policy, guidelines, and discussions here calling it "notability" and now we're going to rename it? And I don't see how "suitability" or "eligibility" is solving any problems. If someone contests a new article, and the creator asks why, they can be told, "Well, it isn't notable", which, while not completely clear, at least gives a hint as to the problem. Replace that with "Well, it isn't suitable", and it tells them nothing, it's just about tautological: "It isn't suitable because it isn't suitable." So then they ask, "What's unsuitable about it", and back comes the answer, "Because it isn't a notable topic." This puts us back where we were if we'd said "notable" in the first place without injecting the "suitable" step. Then, if the user doesn't grasp what notability is, they'll be sent to the renamed page that's now called Wikipedia:Notability, which, under any title, will be just as complicated and daunting as it is now.
  In addition, "notable" can be understood as a description of an article's subject in the context of the world. I can talk about whether someone or something is notable independently of the existence of Wikipedia. The quality of being notable or non-notable inheres in the person or thing at a given time. "Joe Schmoe down my block is a notable guy." Different people will have different criteria for making that assessment of him, but whichever criteria are chosen, a frame of reference still isn't required. In contrast, it's meaningless to say "Joe Schmoe down down my block is a suitable guy" without stating relative to what: suitable for a given job, for my attention, for election, for a Wikipedia article. "Suitable" is meaningful only in reference to something else. Largoplazo (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think what you point out in the second paragraph is deliberate – people sometimes show up with sources saying "John Doe is a notable actor" and are surprised that Wikipedia does not consider that proof of notability. Nobody would be surprised that "John Doe is suitable for such-and-such purpose off Wikipedia" does not prove that he is suitable for a Wikipedia article. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are stuck on thinking about notability. Using your example of a new editor creating an article that should not be a part of the encyclopedia I come up with this:

  EE (Experienced Editor) Well it isn't wp:suitable.

  NE (New Editor) What is unsuitable about it?

  EE Because it does not have reliable secondary sources that have significant coverage of the topic.

  So you see it can work without using the word notability or notable. Here is another example:

  EE (Experienced Editor) Your article is not suitable to be included on Wikipedia because it does not meet Wikipedia:Suitability.

  NE (New Editor) How does my article not meet the suitability policy?

  EE Your article doesn't have enough reliable sources that have significant coverage to show that it should be included on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to find out how to find more reliable sources. Also your sources are not independent of the subject so that also violates WP:Suitability.

  NE Ok will look at WP:RS and WP:Suitability.

  If you think that those two examples are not enough then ask and I will gladly give more examples, all without mentioning notability. Sheriff U3 22:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's what would happen as well though:

  Experienced Editor: Your topic is not WP:Suitable for a Wikipedia article.

  Newbie: Yes, it is. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. Or, at least, I don't think the newbie would then say "I have a Reliable Source right here saying 'Alice Expert is a suitable expert', so the fact that she's WP:Suitable is a verifiable fact."

  That happens now (and has happened for years) with "Notable", but I don't think it will happen with "Suitable".

  We could name the guideline "WP:Foo", and there would still be people who actually read it and come to a different conclusion about whether ____ is supported by the guideline. But changing the name, to anything that is unlikely to be used as a description of a person/subject in reliable sources, would remove the "follow the sources" claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But then they would just be blatantly ignoring Wikipedia polices. Whereas with notability they come with the knowledge that it is notable in RL, but don't realize that it is not notable per Wikipedia. And suitability makes people think: "What does Wikipedia consider as suitable for an article?" Cause it carries with it the knowledge that it depends on the context and situation. Notability though does not depend on the context and situation as much. Sheriff U3 23:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your examples are additional demonstrations of my point about it being tautological—it gives the newbie no new information, and is a bit off-putting. Frankly, it sounds like "because I said so". In response, "it isn't a notable topic" is shorter than your responses and may be sufficiently explanatory if, for example, they wrote an article about their ninth grade classmate, and they can understand immediately on being told that that of course their ninth grade classmate isn't notable In contrast, if you went at that person directly with "because it does not have reliable secondary sources that have significant coverage of the topic", they could be completely lost. Save that for people for aren't satisfied by the explanation "It isn't a notable topic". Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I could just as easily say "It is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia", if it was something like that. And they could still see that it is not suitable for a worldwide encyclopedia that is read by millions. Sheriff U3 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If that was already obvious to them, they wouldn't have created it in the first place. Res ipsa loquitur: that they created the article implies that as far as they're concerned it's suitable. Largoplazo (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but in practice if you tell them “it isn’t a notable topic”, they usually respond with “but yes it is, Battle For Dream Island has millions of viewers!” The hope is that if we use suitable they either read the policy or ask followup questions. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's what this is all boiling down to: that this is based on a hope. That's a lot of upheaval to base on a hope for how things may turn out years from now. At best, it might ease the way from a few newbies, and yet it may also just complicate things for others. Largoplazo (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Tautological" is the intention and has someone actually read the guideline. "Notability" is just misleading, and the only way one could understand Notability is if they read the guideline. And you could just say "it doesn't have SigCov". Aaron Liu (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The intention? It's intended to answer their question in a manner that gives them no additional information? To put them off by being unhelpful is intended?

  When it comes to renaming articles about countries, we do research to show that it's justified by actual usage. Likewise, it's no good to just declare that people will react in a particular way if we make a change to the name of a policy. Can you provide data that show that this change would appreciably increase the number of people who would read the guideline over the number who read it now when notability is explained to them? Without statistics, if the change were made, we'd have no way to know whether it was successful; and we have no basis a priori for anticipating that it will be. Largoplazo (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If linked, many assume that notability just means fame, and that is common experience; this is definitely no problem in suitability, and if they ask again we'd answer "it doesn't have <aspect of notability not satisfied>. You can click the link to find out more!"
  If not linked, well even more people don't click on the notability link thinking you mean fame, which is way worse than the confusion of being told "it should be deleted because it's not suitable". I do not see how misleading would be more helpful at all.
  (Honestly, IMO I think this RfC would've worked better split—whether to add it as an alternative name and whether to move the page in 3 months.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If linked, many assume that notability just means fame, and that is common experience and then we tell them that they're incorrect, and we're either more specific or we send them to the page with the guidelines—except we probably already did that by linking the term the first time was used in in our conversation, and if we think they didn't follow it, then we tell them they should. This just isn't that hard, and it doesn't go away just by saying "suitability" instead of "notability". It's a minuscule problem compared with dealing with someone who sees the guidelines and still wants to debate them. If not linked is irrelevant because if you say it isn't suitable and don't link "suitable", the result is the same. That the link is necessary is obvious to anyone old-timer explaining things to a newcomer precisely because we know the meaning isn't straightforward. My fingers are thoroughly habituated to typing [[WP:N|notability guidelines]] and the like.

  Focusing on the word is really making a mountain out of a molehill. The actual mountain is people not understanding what the guidelines are telling them when they read them, or wanting to argue about them. This is as though someone, after observing scores of discussions on country talk pages about whether to change the articles' titles to reflect their new official name, and seeing how contentious they get, notices that the shortcut for the overarching guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. So that person, despite the fact that close to 100% of the grievance over those guidelines is about whether they should be the guidelines, or whether we should ignore the guidelines and should instead follow a rule of the debaters' own devising, thinks that if we change the shortcut to WP:COUNTRYNAME or WP:BASETITLESONUSAGEINENGLISHRELIABLESOURCES, that that will fix everything. In the case of notability, the effort involved in the very brief exchange involved in getting someone to the guidelines is almost nothing compared with the effort involved when the newcomer is overwhelmed by them or doesn't like them and doesn't want to follow them. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  we tell them that they're incorrect We would skip that step. it doesn't go away just by saying "suitability" instead of "notability" Yes it does, as "suitability" has no "fame" meaning. As you've said, it would be a tautology, and thus would be devoid of incorrect meanings. I do not get why you think being a tautology is bad here. You'll find that e.g. WP:ImageUse and WP:ReliableSources are also tautologies, and we already have good shortcuts to the individual criteria for WP:N such as SigCov and Independent.
  CommonName is about names being common and is way more than just countries. Notability is not about including topics that are merely Worthy of note; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished or popular.
  is almost nothing compared with That's only because the latter effort is much higher, not that the former effort is small. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this non-solution. The colloquial meanings of "suitability", "eligibility", etc. are no more accurate than the colloquial meaning of "notability" as a description of Wikipedia-notability, so there is no benefit to this change, and significant cost to Wikipedia in the changeover of terminology and in potential future confusion over the difference in terminology between past and future. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How would there be confusion between the old and new? Cause this will not remove notable and notability as it can still be used after the change, it would just be the alternative wording. And all the old shortcuts would still work cause they would still link to the same polices. Sheriff U3 23:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the old wording will still be around in 25 years of archived discussions, and if we change the wording then newer editors will think it means something different. And having a choice of alternative wordings for what should be a single concept is a recipe for confusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can look back at old archives now and find references to things that don't exist now. But that is to be expected. And how many times does someone go through the old archives anyways? I never have needed to look at old archives more then 2-3 years except when I was just looking to see what it was like back then. Plus the old wording in the polices would still be available for them to see through the page history. Sheriff U3 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, WP:BLUDGEON might be coming into play here. Since you called through an RFC for an open expression of opinions, you might start allowing people to express their opinions openly, without trying to deny their validity in every case. Your experience with looking back at old archives is only your own experience; my experience as an AfD participant is that I regularly see re-nominations of articles whose previous nomination was years ago, and that it is important to understand the arguments participants were making in those older discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not disagreeing with you about whether bludgeoning is happening here, but Sheriff, didn't launch this RFC, Mrfoogles did. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support suitability or eligibility due to the confusion often caused by the difference between the meanings of the Wikipedia term Notabilility and the real-world term. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 23:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ("eligibility" strongly, "suitability" plainly). Per my comments in the most recent prior discussion, I agree that there is a problem to be solved but I disagree that either of the proposed terms will on balance be an improvement over "notability". Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As noted by Pppery, the definition of "notable" includes being noted or worthy of note. If there are no reliable third-party sources of a topic, then surely it fails that definition because no one else has felt it worthy of note. This feels like a solution in search of a problem based on a pedantic interpretation of definition. The Wiktionary definition of wikt:suitability is Having sufficient or the required properties for a certain purpose or task; appropriate to a certain occasion and the definition of wikt:eligible is Allowed to and meeting the necessary conditions required to participate in or be chosen for something; what would be the "sufficient or required properties" or "necessary conditions" if not what is already required by WP:GNG or the various SNGs? If all we are doing is changing a word and nothing else, then is anything really broken? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because people have predefined what is notable so when they hear that word they think "but it is notable." Whereas with suitability they think suitable for what? What is suitable for Wikipedia? Plus notability does not really fit with Wikipedia's definition of what is notable. Sheriff U3 23:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The goal of the change isn’t “what word is more appropriate” but “what word will convince newbies to read the guidelines or ask rather than asserting that Battle For Dream Island must be notable because it has millions of viewers”. The sufficient and necessary conditions are that multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sheriff U3: You keep saying notability does not really fit with Wikipedia's definition of what is notable, which has become a WP:BLUDGEON you are trying to use in this discussion. If something is not covered in reliable third-party sources to a level acceptable to Wikipedia – which really isn't a large burden since even a single source can be sufficient to begin an article – then it already isn't notable, suitable, eligible, or whatever other synonym you want to use. These people are thinking "this is notable to me," when what is important is "this is notable on a larger scale."

  @Mrfoogles: The sufficient and necessary conditions are that multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage. This is already stated in WP:GNG. What exactly is going to change if this is approved?

  If the concern is that new editors don't read the policies and guidelines, then just changing the wording of those policies and guidelines is not going to fix that. What we need to think about is better education for new editors. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok will stop now. Thanks for letting me know. Sheriff U3 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jkudlick, I was answering your question as to why it fit what the notability criteria are. As for what would change, see the comment just below. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lot of people are questioning whether this change is really needed, so I wanted to clarify the point. The idea is that "suitable for the encyclopedia" being based on coverage in reliable sources is more intuitive than "notable" being based on coverage in reliable sources, because some things seem to newcomers like they should be notable but aren't covered in reliable sources, which creates confusion.
  The WP:Battle for Dream Island and WP:Subjective importance essays illustrate the problem -- notability on WP is often confused for notability in life. Suitability for WP can't be confused for notability in life (subjective importance) because the word "suitability" (or for that matter, "eligibility", although I don't prefer that) inherently implies that it's talking about something specific to Wikipedia and you have to go read the guidelines. @David Eppstein the point isn't that it's more accurate as a descriptor, the point is that it makes newbies realize "Oh, I have to go read the guideline and something is specific to Wikipedia here" in a way that the commonly used word "notability" doesn't. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  E.g. some of the examples form the Subjective importance essay:

  • Keep It is the best-selling brand – Keeping up with the Joneses, 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a game everyone plays – Challenge me, 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a favorite recipe – Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This would stop newbies from doing this, at least partially. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  [citation needed]. None of those problems would be solved by a new equally-vague name. I think if anything they would be made worse. In more detail: I believe "suitable" is much more likely to be interpreted as something like WP:NOT than like WP:N, leading to fallacious reasoning like: biographies are a suitable topic for Wikipedia, this is a biography, and so we should include this biography. It doesn't convey any of the sense of being significant enough that notability does (even though for most topics we measure significance in terms of media coverage rather than in other ways). And it also conveys a false sense of permanence: a non-notable subject could become notable in future, but a subject that is unsuitable is going to remain forever unsuitable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Anyone who thinks "everyone watches this guy on YouTube" is a good notability argument would not be deterred by having to instead adapt to form a "suitability argument". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt that. You wouldn't be able to say "they're famous that means they're suitable" as much as "they're famous that means they're notable". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Re-programming everyone to think and use the new term, and updating all the various Wikipedia-space pages to match, would be far more work than explaining things to a confused newbie once in awhile. I think Wikipedia notability is extremely complicated in general, and renaming it would not solve 99% of its complexity. Newbies would still be confused. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose fixing what ain't broken. It's by now well-established terminology for a well-established concept. Write an essay called "Notability means suitability" or whatever that you can point newbies towards if you think that would help with some task of which I am unaware. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support suitable per above. A very common newcomer misconception argument is "It's famous, so it's notable". "It's famous, so it's suitable" is much less of a leap and would strongly incentivize them to check out what "suitable" actually means on Wikipedia instead of assuming WP:N is just a list of guidance with metrics to help gauge how famous a topic is; by checking the page, they would see the lede and what our actual criteria are (including WP:Not and WP:Merge). And no, "suitability" is no more black-and-white than "notability". I believe enough that this will not cause chaos, as the transition would be similar to the "transition" from "sysop" to "administrator". Aaron Liu (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Let's do it! How many hours have I wasted trying to explain to a well-meaning newcomer why so-and-so not being notable isn't a reflection on their worth as a person? Too many. Chetsford (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After such a change, you would have to explain why a topic is not suitable or why it is not eligible. Why is band X suitable but band Y is not? The answer is that band X has been noted by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Or Band X is eligible as it has reliable sources? Band Y is not suitable as it does not have reliable sources? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting here that the Chinese Wikipedia community recently (~3 months ago) renamed their term (policy text title) from 关注度 (from enwikt: level of interest, notability) to 收录标准 (inclusion criteria/standard of inclusion) which meant that instead of saying something is notable or not, they are now saying whether an article meets the inclusion criteria. This was their discussion for anyone interested. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  inclusion criteria/standard of inclusion is a good alternative Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that while this is terse in Chinese, it's quite verbose and far more frustrating to type in English, so I doubt we could adopt it. It does show that others agree that "tautology" is not a bad thing, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I'm not a native English speaker, but to my understanding "notability" sounds as a trait the subject already has (or not), regardless of our interpretations. "Suitability" implies that there is a set of rules to decide who is suitable and who isn't, and "Eligibility" implies that there is a jury who decide from their ivory towers who is elected and who isn't. And yes, there is some of that by necessity, but the big idea is to keep that to a minimum. The purpose of making notability be based on sourcing and not on our own judgement is to prevent the arbitrariness that would inevitably ensue.
  Also, Notability in the English Wikipedia is already a real-world thing in itself. It may also be argued that a newcomer may get confused by not finding the famous notability rule. This change would be similar to that time Elon Musk changed the branding name of "Twitter" to the meaningless "X" just for kicks. Cambalachero (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; there is no problem with "notability", which unlike the alternatives offered here conveys the importance of demonstrated relevance to the encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, "suitability" implies propriety, and we don't need help perpetuating the idea that Wikipedia should exclude topics that are vulgar, stupid, sexy, etc. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's how it sounds to me too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have made 12,000 edits over the years at the Teahouse, our main venue for assisting new editors. I understand the thinking of typical new editors. It is a myth that less experienced editors have an unusual level of difficulty understanding notability as opposed to other key Wikipedia concepts like verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. Most good faith new editors can understand these things by reading the corresponding pages or discussing them at the Teahouse, the Help Desk or in a discussion with a mentor. Those who are here instead to promote non-notable (or unsuitable) topics will claim not to understand as they push their personal agendas. I fail to see how "suitability" or "eligibility" would be significantly easier for good faith new editors to understand. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Tweak to wikinotability. I admit it's a neologism, but I use it on pages like the Teahouse so that newbies can clue in that what Wikipedia considers notable is different from the general definition. It's definitely less wordy than "notability as Wikipedia defines it". The other proposed suggestions may fall afoul of the shortcomings notability has, and reworking policy pages and all mentions of the word notable and its derivatives will be time-consuming. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also wanted to give Michael D. Turnbull a shoutout for being one of the other editors to use this. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the term wikinotability and may start using that myself. It definitely shows that what we use is not the true textbook definition. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I also like that. At least moving this page to Wikinotability would alleviate, hopefully with way less controversy. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any change. I'll still use wikinotability sometimes with new editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, well-established jargon; if any change is made it should be something like "wikinotability" that clarifies it is the same thing (and that it is not something like "suitability" or "eligibility" that carries real world connotations not shared by the very specific meaning of "notability" on Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The change would involve a lot of work in editing policy pages, confuse newbies while ongoing (which I'd expect to take years rather than months), and achieve little - whatever word we use, we'll have to explain its meaning. But I support Tenryuu's suggestion a little way above, I'll take to writng "wikinotabilty" myself. Maproom (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• General Oppose per other's comments. First, I'm not really convinced there's a problem that needs solving here. The term notability may be confusing to some at first, but generally most people get the idea after learning it, as did I. Also, not to pull fait accompli, but this term is already well-established jargon in the commmunity; as someone pointed out, there's at least twenty (20)years worth of discussion, pages, and other things already calling it notability. I feel the result will be constant confusion, even after the adjustment because of the two-decade run this term has had. I also take issue with the options suitability and elligibility as they don't convey the same meaning notability does. I should also note that the "not suitable for Wikipedia" is already frequently used in reference to WP:NOT. If we really, really want to do it, I'm perfectly okay with wikinotability as a name as it's already informally established in forums like the Teahouse and still conveys the meaning notability does. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • General Oppose After reading @Sparkle and Fade's comment above, I think I'd like to simply concur with him or her. Somehow I can't see a major need for change of the term, though I think suitability also has merit. If, however, there's a future go-round about changing notability to something else, I'd like to toss deserving of attention into the pot for consideration. It's from the Cambridge Dictionary's definition of notability.

  Augnablik (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No evidence that the work involved in a changeover would be worth the effort. Much easier to change AfD to discussion, and the community doesn't even want to do that. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The advantage of "suitability" is that it is such a general term that you have to look up the specifics. The advantage of "notability" is that you get a clue/reminder as to what the criteria are, with the disadvantage that some newbies might be misled. On balance, I prefer the status quo. However, Sparkle and Fade's suggestion of "wikinotability" seems to me to have all the advantages without the disadvantages. And it could be introducted gradually as an optional alternative to "notability" when it is helpful to be more specific. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I should note that I wasn't the first person to suggest wikinotability as a tweak... —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 10:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "suitable" and "eligible" conceptually are "in/ex-clusive" in their implication, my concern is this treats Wikipedia as an object in itself, so we attach the status to Wikipedia and deem something relevant for in/ex-clusion. However, to me notability is more neutral, it centres the concern with the object of attention. To be somewhat simplistic, we're not a club seeking to keep the riff-raff out and let in the well-heeled. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Notability is a continuum, some are obviously notable while others are barely notable. 'Barely eligible' doesn't seem right to me and I'm not convinced that less explaining would need to be done. Wikinotability I would say is fine for me. 115.188.132.65 (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think changing it to eligibility or suitability simply creates new problems. Suitability is vague and comes with a morality-based connotation that notability doesn't have. Eligibility sounds more bureaucratic and rigid. They're certainly not improvements enough to invalidate two decades of discussion of the concept of notability and the many, many pages that reference notability. I would also wager that a significant percentage of the editors who claim to not understand notability instead simply don't like the concept of notability, as it's interfering with what they want to do. Trying to solve complex problems through semantic shift are unlikely to work. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle I have long thought, and argued on occasion, that 'Notability' is too misleading to non-Wikipedians, and was (as so often in the Sciences) probably an ad-hoc placeholder that has never been revisited: unfortunately the English language does not (to my knowledge) contain a word that fully and succinctly conveys what we have come to mean by it in Wiki-jargon. The best I can suggest is the phrase "sufficiently well documented", which is too long-winded. A neologism like "Docsuff" is probably not going to fly outside of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Question: have any different-language Wikipedias come up with a better alternative in their own language? Though probably not usable here, such usages might give us some further ideas. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.64.108 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Earlier in the chain, I did see encyclopedianess from plwiki; a bit unwieldy in my opinion though. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either suitability or eligibility. While "notability" has been used for a long time, it suffers from the sunk cost fallacy: keeping it will cause more issues with newcomers in the future, who will not automatically understand it as an established term. Our target audience isn't the 20+ year veteran editors, but future newcomers, and every step towards making Wikipedia more accessible counts. I also disagree with the bikeshedding argument, as it isn't a "detail" distracting us from any bigger issue to solve right now, at least not more than any other proposed change in policy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sunk cost fallacy does not apply. If anything, the change would be the antithesis of the sunk cost fallacy as we are putting more effort into propping up a system. All we are doing is changing the name and hoping it fixes stuff. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as I'm failing to see the alternatives as necessarily better, and certainly not enough better enough to justify the massive amount of work required. There are a great many PaGs on Wikipedia that have names that sometimes lead to confusion with newcomers. I'm sure we've all seen people assume that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means we should both sides a subject because that would be "Neutral". I've seen people assume that Wikipedia:Verifiability means as long as they post a social media link that claims to give proof that's fine. And so one with basically any PaG you can think of (which will probably have been misinterpreted based on a common English reading of its name at some point in this site's history). Unfortunately, its almost impossible to construct a PaG name in a way that it covers the complex mechanics underneath. I aslo think the same is true for the proposed "eligibility" (articles need to clear more than just WP:N to be eligible for a page: i.e. WP:NOPAGE, WP:NOT, etc.). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Zanahary and other persuasive comments made above. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that our article creation criteria are not intuitive and require some willingness on the part of (i) new editors to read the guidelines, and (ii) experienced editors to explain things to the new ones. Cbl62 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To slightly elongate your willingness requirements for new and experienced editors, @Cbl62, I’d like to point out the need of Wiki documentation in general for good examples to clarify what would be and wouldn’t be X. Haven’t looked at the Notability documentation recently, but it’s a perfect term to pick as an example of Wiki terms in need of good examples. 😅

  And more just than one or two examples for particularly slippery terms like this one. Augnablik (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose None of these necessarily better define the term and people will be just as, if not more, confused. If definitions are required one can always look at the policy page itself. I do not see any significant benefits of any new name change and the change from WP:N to WP:S or WP:E (both of which already have stuff there) will be painful or annoying at the very least. The backrooms of Wikipedia also do not need to be accessible. Not outright hostile, but it does not need to be clean for the public besides what is needed for us to edit and to not scare away newcomers. Swapping to E or S does not aid in that second part. Also, as a newer editor WP:N, especially GNG, was among one of the easiest policies to understand. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What Pppery said. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see the point. Eligibility makes it sound like an elite club, when actually having an article written about you is more often than not a curse. Suitability doesn't convey the same meaning to me (sounds like it would be about the article which is unsuitable and not the topic of the article). In a way it is good that this is not a term everyone uses every day, because the wikipedias version of it has a different meaning. Polygnotus (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Suitable" as less emotive than "notable", a term that provokes far too many upsets with editors who struggle with the idea that a person can be outstanding, but unfortunately entirely unsuited to an article because for whatever reason, their achievements haven't been written about. Elemimele (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]