Wikipedia:Notabilitymandering
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. |
This page in a nutshell: When designing or debating inherently notable categories or other notability criteria, keep it simple, stupid. |
Notability guidelines, whether categories which are considered
Consider the following example:
All foo are inherently notable except for/provided that bar
Such statements can be acceptable at times, given that bar is a reasonable and non-arbitrary exception. But if bar is a single article, or a few articles, that is/are excluded from the category for such reasons as
This starts becoming more important if there are multiple such exceptions and provisos, or especially when they are nested. Consider:
All foo are inherently notable except for bar, but including article fizz within group bar
Such criteria should be avoided unless there is a really good reason for their inclusion.
Even though "inherent non-notability" doesn't exist on Wikipedia, any category of articles that is discouraged or prohibited (such as
Foo is not an inherently notable category, but article foo1 within foo is inherently notable
Such criteria should be avoided without really good cause lest it become the analogous evil of nonnotabilitymandering.
Examples
Hierarchical categories
Consider inherently notable category 1. Category 2, a subcategory of 1, is also inherently notable. However, category 3, a subcategory of 2, is not inherently notable, and neither is category 4, a subcategory of 3. Category 5, a subcategory of 4, should NOT be inherently notable without good cause.
Chronological categories
Any chronological categories (such as lists of Heads of State, etc.) should not exclude inherent notability to any member based on chronology (e.g. the Grand Poobahs of Freedonia are inherently notable if and only if they served after 1978) without good cause. Especially discouraged are multiple such exclusions (e.g. the Grand Poobahs of Freedonia are inherently notable if and only if they served before 1953 or after 1978).
What this is not
A ban on any notability nuance
Exceptions to rules or decisions on notability are not notabilitymandering provided that they are legitimate and reasonable. Indeed, many of Wikipedia's actual notability guidelines are quite detailed. This even applies for nested exceptions or provisos, although the more arcane and counter-intuitive they are the bigger the onus is for justifying their existences. "Extraordinary exceptions require extraordinary justifications" is a good rule of thumb.
An attempt to make notability an even playing field
An excuse to violate policy
This user-submitted essay should not be used to trump such established policies as
Nor is this in conflict with
Finally, as
See also
- WP:Notability, for notability in general
- WP:INHERENT, for inherent notability in general
- WP:GNG, any articles that pass this are immune from any discussion of notabilitymandering
- WP:NOTLEVEL, which is not necessarily notabilitymandering