Wikipedia:Inherent notability

This is an essay on notability.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Ultimately, the community decides if a subject is intrinsically notable.

Most species are generally agreed to be notable, including the *pineapple*. While they may have articles, Wikipedia guidelines still require all information contained in those articles be verifiable. If no information in the article can be verified in independent sources then it may be deleted or merged away, no matter how notable to the subject.

Inherent notability is the idea that certain subjects on Wikipedia qualify for articles on the English Wikipedia merely by the nature of their subjects, and without considering whether the subjects meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion or whether any material on the subject can be verified. The contrasting view argues that nothing is inherently notable since notability requires verifiable evidence and is not conferred by association with other topics.

The word inherently means that, by the nature of the subject, it intrinsically belongs in a given group, regardless of any other considerations. Notability in wikijargon is a claim, based on WP:N, about whether an article belongs in the encyclopedia. To say that a subject is inherently notable, then, is to say that the subject intrinsically belongs in the encyclopedia, regardless of any other considerations—even including such critical considerations as whether or not it is possible for the resulting article to comply with the core content policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

What makes a member of a category "inherently notable" or "not inherently notable" is really the way they tend to be viewed by the Wikipedia community. A sense of this can be given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. There are some topics for which editors have accepted all member subjects as notable, e.g. census-designated places. Every geographic area used by the U.S. Census Bureau now has an article on Wikipedia whether or not it is the subject of "non-trivial coverage by multiple sources".

On the other hand, there are other topics for which not all member subjects are considered to be inherently notable. For example, bands are only viewed as notable if they seriously are shown to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines.

Arguments for

Common examples tend to be found in geography based subjects, where all cities, towns, and certain other subjects are considered by some to be entitled to articles. This belief is fostered by the fact that these are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their own way. It is asserted that the articles have a right to exist, even if they are not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", as the articles can be sourced to publicly available data, for example census data.

Arguments against

If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it in an independently published book or magazine, then we as Wikipedians have proof that it should be considered notable; if no one has written about a topic in a published work, then notability may be difficult to gauge. We can argue that X or Y are notable or non-notable at all, but the only evidence we can present to buttress our arguments is the presence or absence of reliable sources.

Unfortunately, too often this definition of notability is misused.

I like it. An article is unsourced and efforts to produce sources have ended in failure, yet people argue that the subject is "inherently notable". Putting aside the bigger problem of having a possibly unverifiable (i.e., original research) article, the claim of "inherent notability" is subjective and cannot be proven.
Unresearched. An article about a subject has no sources, so people claim that "the subject is not notable". That's a fallacy! The problem is not notability, but lack of verification. Only after one has searched for sources and failed to find any can one suggest: "the subject does not seem to be notable". We can prove that a subject is notable, but we cannot prove the converse; we can only note that no proof was found to establish notability.
I don't like it. An article about a subject is sourced with reliable sources, yet people argue for deletion based on the notion that the subject is "inherently not notable". This is no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and/or WP:IDONTKNOWIT and is subject to the same criticisms applicable to the first class of misuse.

Whether some topics are or are not inherently notable is, on Wikipedia, irrelevant. The standard way of demonstrating notability involves showing that others have deemed it worthy of being written about. Sources themselves do not establish notability, but they prove notability.

Certainty of Wikipedia-style notability

Some sorts of articles will, by definition, meet Wikipedia's basic notability standard of non-trivial coverage by multiple-sources and long-term importance. For example, in the United States, places listed on the National Register of Historic Places will necessarily meet this standard, as inclusion on that list requires third-party, published documentation of a place's importance, and all NRHP listings, with detailed information on the listed place, are published. Thus, any place listed on the register will certainly have enough sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines.

Obvious notability

Obvious notability describes when few or no references are placed within an article and given this fact, the subject is not asserted to have met notability guidelines. However, the article is about a subject that is so well-known that everyone views it as notable, and therefore, no one is likely to ever challenge its presence.

For example, no one would challenge articles about the Atlantic Ocean, George Washington, or tigers, even if there were zero sources. Everyone knows the Atlantic Ocean is an important part of our planet, and that it belongs in an encyclopedia.

Just because a subject is obviously notable does not mean an article about the subject meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Such articles have numerous problems. These include, but are not limited to, neutrality violations, the possibility of containing original research, or sneaking in intentional inaccuracies. For biographies of living persons, regardless of how much they may be seen by society as being worthy of having articles, it is especially important that all information be accurately sourced.

Additionally, the parent subject may be clearly notable. But this does not guarantee that every article pertaining to this subject is worthy of inclusion. Strict guidelines pertain to writing such sub-articles of a parent article, not just out of notability concerns, but also due to the possibility of a POV fork.

For example, while it has been established that tiger is notable, this does not automatically mean that "tiger behavior" is worthy of a standalone article. Likewise, while it is agreed that George Washington is indeed notable, adding separate articles called "Childhood of George Washington", "Criticism of George Washington", and "Legacy of George Washington" without good cause could run afoul of Wikipedia's notability, neutrality, and content forking guidelines. An obvious example of a strongly POV fork of the "George Washington" article would be "Reasons why George Washington was the worst President."

Arguments for

Arguments against

Certainty of Wikipedia-style notability

Obvious notability

See also