 | 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: The term "Inherent Notability" should not be used or taken literally. |
When people on Wikipedia use the term "inherent notability" they may use it as slang for "it's a safe bet X is notable because it is in category Y, because few if any topics in category Y do not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability."
It is incorrect to say "X has inherent notability" if you mean it literally.
There is no such thing as inherent notability.
Let me repeat: There is no such thing as inherent notability.
For the purposes of Wikipedia, notability is not inherited, nor is it inherent.
However, there is such a thing as "almost certain notability."
"I want to add an article about the President of North Korea, he must be notable." So, find citations.
Don't nit-pick the obvious to make a point:
If someone does create an article about a topic that's "generally regarded as having few if any non-notable members," such as a head of state, don't tag it for notability or deletion. Instead, spend a few minutes finding at least one independent, non-trivial, reliable source that supports the article's notability.
What's that, you can't find one? If you looked hard enough and can't find one, maybe you did find the one head of state who nobody cares enough about to write about.
| 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: The term "Inherent Notability" should not be used or taken literally. |
When people on Wikipedia use the term "inherent notability" they may use it as slang for "it's a safe bet X is notable because it is in category Y, because few if any topics in category Y do not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability."
It is incorrect to say "X has inherent notability" if you mean it literally.
There is no such thing as inherent notability.
Let me repeat: There is no such thing as inherent notability.
For the purposes of Wikipedia, notability is not inherited, nor is it inherent.
However, there is such a thing as "almost certain notability."
"I want to add an article about the President of North Korea, he must be notable." So, find citations.
Don't nit-pick the obvious to make a point:
If someone does create an article about a topic that's "generally regarded as having few if any non-notable members," such as a head of state, don't tag it for notability or deletion. Instead, spend a few minutes finding at least one independent, non-trivial, reliable source that supports the article's notability.
What's that, you can't find one? If you looked hard enough and can't find one, maybe you did find the one head of state who nobody cares enough about to write about.