Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works

Wikipedia's notability requirement is perhaps the most confusing of all of Wikipedia's core requirements and guidance. The system mostly works, but is very difficult to fully understand or explain. Lack of recognition of how it actually works presents a roadblock to progress and clarification in this area. This essay seeks to fix that by summarizing observations and analysis of what is actually in the notability guidelines and how it actually operates, with emphasis on areas which are different than some often-stated concepts.

Notability is Wikipedia's name for the "should this be allowed to be a separate article?" quality.

Rather than being truly defined in one place, wiki-notability has a defacto definition which is the end result of a complex wiki-notability ecosystem. This ecosystem consists of guidelines, established practices and values, venues and other pages and human decision making which includes weighting and combining multiple considerations. Contrary to common themes, it incorporates criteria other than what are widely considered to be notability criteria, including degree of encyclopedicness of the topic and degree of (longer term) importance, impact or prominence of the topic.

Terminology

In this essay:

• "Wiki-notability" refers to the entire Wikipedia ecosystem done in the name of "notability".
• "WP:Notability" refers to that specific Wikipedia page
• "Sourcing-GNG" refers to the sourcing-based criteria portion of the WP:Notability page
• "SNG" refers to the subject-specific guidelines listed at WP:Notability, a common abbreviation derived from "special notability guidelines".

The three main wiki-notability criteria

The wiki-notability ecosystem is the main screening system for existence as a separate article. Decisions made in the name of notability are based on a combination of:

1. Degree of availability of suitable sourcing/coverage from which to build a suitable article
2. Some degree of exclusivity based on degree of (longer term) importance, impact or prominence of the topic.
3. Degree of encyclopedic-ness of the topic.

Variable weighting is assigned to these and then they are combined in the decision-making process. In general, greatest weight is given to #1 (sourcing) and sourcing is also a main gauge of #2 making sourcing doubly influential. The decision is couched in terms of whether it complies with the sourcing-GNG or with a SNG criteria, although the actual situation is more complex than the impression given by that.

Now let's explore each of these separately

Degree of availability of suitable sourcing/coverage from which to build a suitable article

The most common measure of this quality is degree of compliance with the sourcing GNG. And indeed, combined with this being the strongest-weighted criteria, the most common situation is making the overall notability decision based solely on a reasonable degree (but not totally strict) of compliance with the sourcing-GNG. But "most common" does not mean "only".

Some degree of exclusivity based on degree of (longer term) importance, impact or prominence of the topic

This is a part of being encyclopedic / an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with 10 million selective articles is a better information source than one with those 10 million articles lost in a sea of 10 billion resumes/CV's, business listings and other factoids and pieces of information that are not encyclopedia articles. Metrics of this include:

• Published coverage of the topic gauged by the amount and depth of coverage dedicated to the topic and the prominence (exclusivity) of the source. Note that this is a second different use of sourcing as a measure, this time as a measure of the "Degree of importance, impact or prominence of the topic".
• Many of the SNG criteria also measure this. This is contrary to the concept that SNG's are only predictors of Sourcing-GNG coverage.
• A general assessment of this attribute

Degree of encyclopedic-ness of the topic

The main measure of this is the degree of it's compliance with WP:Not. "Degree" means how far it exceeded the very low bar where it would be rejected based only on WP:Not. When the nature of the topic is extremely encyclopedic, an SNG (for example, WP:Notability (geographic features) ) can make this a dominant factor in the notability decision.

Components of our notability ecosystem - structural notes

Main Wp:Notability guideline

The first section / "lead" of the WP:notability guideline (plus a few paragraphs in the body) is actually a functionally separate meta-guideline covering both overall wiki-notability and Wikipedia's meta statement of the main criteria for existence of an article. For example, this portion gives Wp:not a prominent procedural place and defines the place SNG's (Special Notability Guidelines) have and defines which are official. The remainder of WP:notability is a sourcing-based criteria, often referred to as "GNG" or the "General Notability Guideline"; we'll call it the "sourcing-GNG". Thus the term "GNG" has two common meanings, either the latter, or the entire WP:Notability page.

Special notability guidelines

Meeting the requirements of an SNG is an alternative to needing to meet the requirements of sourcing-GNG criteria. A common statement by editors, and a common statement is SNG wording is that they are mere predictors of compliance with the sourcing-GNG. This is an important and influential statement, but is not always true. Examples of exceptions to both of theses statement include:

• They sometimes help measure criteria #2 (importance) and #3 (encyclopedicness) above
• Sets up criteria which reflect non-GNG considerations (e.g. WP:Notability (geographic features) recognizes the particular encyclopedicness of geographic features)
• WP:Ncorp modifies the application of GNG to apply tougher sourcing criteria.
• Several others set up alternate criteria where GNG is not commonly used or usable
• The effect is that some bypass the need for source-GNG compliance rather than merely predict it.

WP:What Wikipedia is not

WP:What Wikipedia is not is invoked in the meta-guideline portion of WP:Notability. Beside the prima facie requirement of no outright rejection by this policy, the degree to which wp:not requirement has been met is incorporated in the Special Notability Guidelines as well as wiki-notability decision in general

Other components

• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion pre-screens some severe cases
• WP:Five pillars states or summarizes key points
• WP:AFD and WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
• WP:New page patrol and WP:Articles for creation makes some decisions
• Notability article tags express concerns about wiki-notability

Decision venues

Decisions (of varying weight) are made at the article (including tagging and nomination for deletion), during Articles for Creation and New Page Patrol decisions, and at Articles for Deletion

Implementation

Mechanics of the decision

The basic mechanism is to decide whether or not a topic meets the sourcing-GNG criteria or an applicable SNG criteria. All of the above considerations (including incorporation of considerations often not considered to be a criteria of wiki-notability) operate through this basic mechanism.

Structure of Wiki-Notability decision making

The structure of Wiki-Notability decision making is the same as with most other Wikipedia decisions. Noteworthy here is what is described at Wikipedia:How editing decisions are made. The process weights and combines all of the above criteria. So rather than being a flow chart where the criteria are applied separately, it operates as a neural net.

Notes on common memes

A common statement is that in the end, only meeting the sourcing-GNG matters. And, for example, that the SNG's are merely predictors of it. This concept is important and influential in the wiki-notability ecosystem, even though it is not totally true. "Not totally true" is a major part of this essay.

Another common statement is that SNG's are merely predictors of the topic's ability to meet the sourcing-GNG criteria. This concept is important and influential in the wiki-notability ecosystem, even though it is not totally true. "Not totally true" is a major part of this essay.