Wikipedia talk:Inherent notability

message: This is fundamentally misguided.  We should not be looking to invent our own arbitrary notability criteria.  I don't see any rationale being given here- it's just a list of things the author apparently thinks are notable.  Friday (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note most of the article is just a summary of the individual articles on notability. The only thing new is the attempt to codify geography, which has always been in force, but unwritten. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are clearly unsupported WP:POV issues and peacock terms in use in this essay as it stands.  I add a bit to indicate that this is an ongoing argument and that it is NOT considered a standard that all users should follow. Jeepday (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Friday. The only subjects areas that would achieve consensus as inherently notable are ones where there's never any controversy. For example, I think everyone could agree that heads of state are inherently notable, but there's never been any dispute about this. There's plenty of reliable, independent, non-trivial sources for these subjects. What this essay needs, at a minimum, is some reasoning for why these things would be considered inherently notable. I know that I'd contest that "All sports figures that play in at least one professional game" are notable. Every sport, every level, every country, every time period? Chaz Beckett 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Augustin O'Donnell played professional rugby for two years before succumbing to a kidney condition.  You will find scant coverage of him in independent sources, his career having been cut short.  Not notable, poor chap. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know nothing of Augustin O'Donnell, so I'm not sure if he's a notable fellow or not. However, the notability of a specific person is far different than the concept of inherent notability of an entire subject area. Chaz Beckett 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's not notable.  That was the point. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There seems to be consensus that minor league baseball players in the US are not inherently notable, even though they are fully professional. Dsmdgold 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentally misguided 

message: If we can reasonably conclude that some type of subject is always and everywhere the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, then we don't advance the purposes of the encyclopedia by deleting these types of articles, as long as they meet other Wikipedia requirements.
It strains credulity to think that any public secondary school (a/k/a high school), anywhere, has not been the subject of substantial coverage by at least a local newspaper. Nearly all private secondary schools also receive substantial coverage. When a high school is built, it is always notable enough for some local, independent, reliable news organization to publish a news article about. Then more coverage follows. It is unreasonable to believe that this coverage does not exist. Therefore, deleting articles on high schools only means that the work of creating a new high school article will have to be repeated later. Editors may be discouraged if they find a deleted article on the same subject means they have more obstacles to overcome to create the new article. For the good of Wikipedia, we should recognize that all high schools are inherently notable, just as we already do with notability articles. 
The same argument can be made for other classes of subjects, such as critical-care hospitals. 
Articles will still need to be reliably sourced, but a school Web site, for instance, is reliable, even if it isn't independent. If we wind up with information only from "trivial" mentions in sources and from the subject of the article (say, the high school), that should be sufficient until independent sources eventually are found.
One reason, it seems, why we have WP:N is to make sure that articles aren't kept that no one would really care about. But someone always cares about a high school or a hospitals. Neither of these types of organizations tends to be unreliable in putting up information about itself on its Web site or in its literature (at least not the public high schools and hospitals). I don't see any horrible result for Wikipedia if we start recognizing that these types of organizations should have articles as a matter of course. Noroton 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A justification for inherent notability

message: This has been discussed and attracted little notice other than objection, except from the original author.  It meet the criteria for rejection. --Kevin Murray 00:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected

message: One of the ones that bother me on this is sports team members. It seems that anyone who has ever played for a sports team (even quite minor leagues) is apparently deserving and notable enough for their own page. There is no apparent requirement for playing more than a single game even. Along a somewhat similar vein, we do not give the same notability for musicians who provide backup for bigger-name acts. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting concept 

message: Items with defacto notability are very likely to survive a deletion proposal, even when lacking a list of references that describe them as notable. It is suggested that if you do not believe an item within a defacto notable topic belongs to consider placing appropriate tags at the top of the page, merging, or redirecting the article rather than proposing it for deletion.
Wow.  So if we don't think we can successfully AfD an article, we should just contravene apparent consensus and merge it somewhere? Gigs (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting section. 

message: It is impossible to write a Wikipedia article that follows WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc, without having non-trivial sources. If an article is kept because it is "inherently notable", yet it does not have any non-trivial sources, then it is not an encyclopaedia article, and does not add to Wikipedia in a useful way. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hello all,
Quick question - Is there anywhere that calls out what is or is not "inherently notable". The idea that "all living things" are inherently notable seems pretty well established. But is it written into policy anywhere? NickCT (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of things that are inherently notable 

message: It seems to me that villages about which one or two sentences can be written is not notable enough for an article.  Why not redirect names of villages like these to the broader region, where the place can be mentioned in that article.  I am specifically thinking of the article on Nova Božurna.--Pgapunk (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are villages inherently notable?