Wikipedia:Subjective importance

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Subjective importance is when a subject is perceived as being

general notability guidelines
or other inclusion criteria. Therefore, they are not included.

A subject may be the biggest, the best, or the most well-known of something. It may be possible on this basis to argue that it should obviously be included. But without a single

verify
its existence or accuracy, there is no way it can be included.

For example, a high school basketball player may be the best on their team. A pizza shop may serve the most popular pizza in town. A church may be the oldest place of worship in the region. These facts may be well known to those most familiar with these subjects. But there may be nothing published about any of this that can be used as sources for the basis of an article.

Also, certain factors that are viewed as respectable by society are likewise not automatic grounds for notability. The world has many physicians who have studied hard and save lives. But most of these physicians are relatively unheard of in published sources and are not worthy of articles. Likewise, the principal of a school or the founder of a club do not get automatic articles for their achievements.

Factors that do not automatically render notability

There are many reasons why one may believe something is notable when they are not. In many cases, these have been used in arguments to keep an article proposed for deletion, and they sometimes have worked.

Age

Tortoises can live a very long time. But that does not make each one notable.
  • Keep He is the oldest living person in the country right now – Own A Title, 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This store has been around for 105 years – Hand-me-down, 17:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This house was built over 1300 years ago – Restored, 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's old, that doesn't mean it's notable.

Age is just a number, and numbers are not used to judge notability on Wikipedia. Everything and everyone has an age, and with each passing day, that age is increased by one day. That age will continue to increase as long as the person is alive, or the object still exists. At what time will that person or object be ready for an article?

If a structure that is still standing is thousands of years old, and there is a name put to it, it is likely that there will be

every living tortoise or tree
on planet earth.

The older something is, the more difficult published sources can be to locate. Sources for subjects that existed before the days of the internet are more likely to be offline. While there is

burden
is on the editor adding the material to provide sufficient sources.

Popularity

There are many things that have reached the status of one of the above examples, yet they have never been covered in any published source, and they are nothing more than word-of-mouth. Word-of-mouth is not only insufficient for Wikipedia notability, but it may also be

original research
.

There are sites, such as

their own creation
as something long in existence. The main point of the notability guideline is to provide objective criteria for inclusion rather than subjective criteria such as importance which depend on an individual's perspective on the subject.

Fame

There are many levels of fame. These include:

  • International fame: Refers to those who are known around the world.
  • National fame: People who are known within their own country to its own citizens
  • Local fame: Where one is an iconic figure within their own city, town, or region, but unheard of beyond. See
    WP:LOCAL
  • Reality TV shows
    , but otherwise have no coverage.

But

one event
guideline in particular discourages standalone articles for those who only received this brief coverage.

Regardless of the degree of fame, a

biographies
. Brief public exposure or word-of-mouth only fame does not make one notable.

Talent

What a great work of art! I should write about this on Wikipedia. Or should I?

It is nice to have such talent. But all too often, one's talent and greatness is a matter of personal taste. Even when measured by statistics (such as the number of home runs one has hit) and recorded, it means nothing in the way of notability unless it gets published. Furthermore, every single person in any occupation at all could always simply claim to have talent, whether they've actually achieved anything encyclopedically noteworthy or not — however, Wikipedia's inclusion standards are not based on what's been claimed about a person or group, but on what can be

reliably sourced
as true about a person or group.

And even if a statistic is measurable by numbers, being a great feat is still a point-of-view issue. A high school sports star may not be able to score once at a professional level. A child prodigy may not grow up to be very successful. This is just another reason why sources must continue to rule over so-called "talent."

Rank

  • Keep It is the 5th largest Italian restaurant in Bergenshire – StatsKeeper, 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is the only elementary school on Sunny Drive – No Choice, 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was the first swim club to open within a 2-mile radius of the only convenience store in the neighborhood of Cedarland Heights – One-of-a-kind, 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Their single reached #98 on the Billboard chart – Chartfanatic, 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see how ridiculous this may sound. Believe it or not, arguments similar to these have been made in

AfD debates
, sometimes by a majority of participants, favoring keeping the article, and in many cases, resulting in the articles being kept. But that does not make the topic encyclopedic.

Notability is not about being the biggest, the best, or the only of something. Likewise, not fitting this description does not make something not notable. Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information. No matter what, you can combine all the variables you would like, and then find something unique about every person, every business, every idea.

Prestigious position

A well-educated person may seem automatically worthy of an article. But one's studies alone do not grant them one.
  • Keep He has a master's degree – Earn your article, 13:16, 22 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has a Harvard PhD – Erudition, 14:18, 24 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a physician – CPR, 13:16, 22 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a priest/minister/rabbi/imam – Blessed, 13:16, 22 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is an attorney – It's the law, 13:16, 22 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Certain positions and titles in front of a person's name are a sign of having really accomplished something. Being known as "Dr. John Doe" or "The Reverend John Doe" or "John Doe, Attorney at Law" sounds a lot nicer than simply being called "John Doe." It is quite deserving too. Yet, there are plenty of people out there in these positions who have never received the coverage needed to be given a Wikipedia article. In fact, a very small percentage of those in such positions have accomplished just that.

It may seem strange that at the same time, so many people who have not come close to the above achievements qualify for having articles. Some people have articles for writing one short book, acting in one film, or publishing one song. Some people have articles for playing briefly on a professional sports team. Some people have earned themselves articles just for being victims of crime, or even stranger when you come to think of it, committing the crimes themselves.

While this may seem so unfair, this does not mean a person who has achieved a high academic credential in their field is unimportant,

reliable sources
, and some fields tend to be better covered by reliable sources than others. Entire books will be written on relatively minor film actors or TV actresses, while professors or lawyers who have had significant careers may only merit a few articles in local newspapers.

Non-profit/government operated

Many public transport services raise part of their revenue with advertising

It is a given.

Wikipedia is not an advertising service
. If you've reached this page, you probably know this by now. But the absence of seeking profit is not a free pass to having an article.

For starters, in case you have not noticed, Wikipedia does allow articles about for-profit companies, provided that they meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia has thousands of articles on for-profit companies, ranging from international corporations that are household vocabulary (e.g. Walmart), to some local businesses operating a single location known mostly to those in the region (such as the Hersheypark).

Likewise, an entity that is not out there to make a profit, and is funded by taxes or private donations, or does not operate using money at all, can be excluded if it fails to meet Wikipedia's

general notability guidelines
.

One thing to be aware of is that many services operated by a national, state/provincial, or municipal government are not 100% tax-funded and do indeed solicit income via advertising, just like a for-profit corporation. For example, the

citation
guidelines must be carefully met.

You also cannot forget that the purpose of many non-profit organizations is to support some partisan, often controversial cause (e.g.

neutral, factual
information, and does not promote or oppose the cause.

Dictionary definitions

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are many subjects that are commonplace in our lives. But the most that can be said about them is a simple definition, nothing more, no matter how hard you search. In such a case, rather than creating an article, it is preferable to link from articles that give important mention on the subject with the following: [[wikt:subject name]]. If the subject is the title of a disambiguation page, a link to the wiktionary entry can be obtained by adding {{wiktionary|subjectname}} to the top. If there is only one other use, this can be accomplished through a hatnote of {{see wiktionary|subjectname}}.

For example, the title "nice" is used for the French city Nice. On the page Nice (disambiguation), there is such a link to the word "nice," which includes the English adjective.

Entry of

What goes around comes around
leads to the album by Waylon Jennings. At the top, using {{see wiktionary}}, is a hatnote that says "For a definition of the phrase "what goes around comes around", see the Wiktionary entry {{wikt:what goes around comes around}}."

If one more piece of sourceable information besides the very basic definition can be included, even if the article is still a stub, it is worthy of inclusion.

See also