Wikipedia talk:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability

message: Feel free to revert or move my bit if you disagree with it in the slightest, especially since this is in your userspace (now moved).  I was just throwing out my take on it.  --0x845FED 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're fine. I hadn't thought of a numbers take on it (nor had I read that guideline). I wanted other people to edit it.--Chaser T 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to edit this a little for clarity and such. This is a great idea, possible policy. Yanksox (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early edits

message: I have two questions about keeping this page. First, is it instruction creep? Second, will it ever be anything more than something people cite to shorthand their arguments in *fD? Thoughts?--Chaser T 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added WP:INN as a redirect. I'm hesitant to list both, b/c I think one preferred shortcut makes it easier to remember what is being referenced, but I welcome input.--Chaser T 05:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only said that because WP:INN might be easier to remember than WP:INCL, doesn't hurt to have more than one link. :P Yanksox (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I just disagree about which is easier to remember. Tie breakers?--Chaser T 06:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, it really depends on the person. Alot of articles have multiple links, btw, I tacked something on the end of the first paragraph, just curious if it fits within the lines of the theory. Yanksox (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My goal in starting this was to shorthand a frequent argument (the title and bolded section) that is made at AfD, so that this could just be referenced instead of stating the argument for the hundredth time!. As long as it continues to be useful for that purpose (and maybe even if it doesn't) I'm happy to let the community editing process work.--Chaser T 06:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In which I start an existential crisis (not really)

message: I honestly believe that this article is slowly evolving towards something that looks like a guideline. Something that can exist outside of AfDs, it's a collary and connection to WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. I think you've done well. Yanksox (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm flattered, though other editors deserve a lot of credit for its current state. Could we let the editorial process go for a week or so before we propose it? What's the process for guideline approval anyway?--Chaser T 06:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still see somethings I'd like to play with. Also, I personally believe that the 2nd and 3rd section are a little iffy. But that's me. About guidelines, I'm mildly familar, but everything you need to know is here. Yanksox (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave defense of the second section to 0x845FED, who wrote it. As to the third, since this started as a shorthand response to fallacious arguments at AfD, I added the third section to point the reader to sources that might help them craft more persuasive arguments that were couched in guidelines.--Chaser T 06:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it's a frequently used argument, 'essay' status seems to be appropriate here. Also, what's with the weird capitalisation in the title? Ziggurat 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first draft, the primary shortcut was WP:INN, which is currently a shortcut as well.--Chaser T 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline?

message: I somewhat understand what the second section is stating, but it needs greater clarity and a more straight forward vision. I would be willing to help on this and am interested in opinions. Yanksox (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I think the title is one-sided...  There are certainly some AfD's where inclusionists can say "a similar article has been included before, so it should be kept", and deletionists can say "a similar article has been deleted before, so it should be deleted".  Notability is a gray area, not a sharp line that everybody can agree on (although the gray area is bordered by black and white areas that many people agree are obvious keeps or deletes, but usually in those areas, other considerations like verifiability/spam/vandalism apply rather than notability).  --0x845FED 02:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be in the best interest of the overal piece to eliminate this section. Of course, I'm crazy. Thoughts? Yanksox (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: SM247 made a similar argument about wiki jurisprudence, which is here. I'm not sure how this deviates from the precedents for deletion, but I appreciate your point. Is this thread referencing the second paragraph, or the second section (which involves numbers)? I'm confused by the statements.--Chaser T 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Section

message: Given that the essay/guideline is anti-inclusionist, the shortcut "WP:INCL" is a bit perverse. --LambiamTalk 11:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perverse shortcut 

message: 1111111111 is now a redirect.--SeizureDog 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed the section.--Chaser T 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated analogy 

message: Non-inclusion is not an indicator of non-notability. Fact.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reverse is totally true 

message: and the encyclopedia should always err on the side of notability. The point of the notability guideline is not to spawn deletion battles, but to prevent the encyclopedia from being littered with spurious content. 
Does that mean that inclusion should be considered an indicator of notability? Perhaps it should, if the inclusiveness is from diverse sources that are not shown to be related or coordinated. That means that multiple different individuals believed the topic to be notable. That arguably is an indicator of notability, albeit not an independently sourceable one.
It seems to me that if multiple, independently submitted defenses of an article as notable are present, that shows a likelihood of notability. The reasoning is, that just because an editor hasn't heard of something does not make it non-notable. If multiple, unrelated and uncoordinated other editors have heard of that something, then the value of the doubting editor's unfamiliarity is reduced. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability is incredibly subjective