|
Notability —
|
|
What is notability? What can be considered notable? That which is capable of being noted, that which is noticeable, capable of being seen or noticed. Thus, that which is noted in an independent source which can be relied upon can be considered notable, or can be considered proven to be notable. In other words, anything that is noted in a published source which is independent and reliable can be presumed to be notable (or reliably proven to be notable), i.e. capable of being seen or noticed independently. That's what notability is all about!
- — RogDel
|
|
Significant coverage and multiple sources are not vital to the concept of notability. They are required for things other than notability. (Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that it can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Also, Wikipedia requires "multiple sources" so that it can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view.)
- — RogDel
|
|
That which is famous may not be notable and that which is notable may not be famous. In short, fame does not imply notability, and vice versa.
- — RogDel
|
|
Editors seem likely to fool themselves by mistaking fame for notability, maybe because fame is a more real life concept, while notability is a more technical one.
- — RogDel
|
|
Some are highly notable, some moderately notable, some barely notable, but notable still. Some biographies are highly interesting, some moderately interesting, some barely interesting, but interesting still.
- — RogDel
|
|
Editors are normally so used to Wikipedia[fn 1] and its notability standards that they seem to have forgot (or have never understood) the basic meaning of notability.
- — RogDel
|
|
Wikipedia should and does have the lowest standards of notability among all serious encyclopedias.[fn 2]
- — RogDel
|