 | 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. |
The general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is sometimes cited as the basis for deleting an article in deletion discussions. This is an improper use of the guideline, since it is a guideline for presuming notability, not a guideline for presuming non-notability. Attempting to use the guideline to presume non-notability is a logical fallacy.
The guideline begins with the following text (as of 2010-10-17): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" [Emphasis added].
It is a logical fallacy called " denying the antecedent" to read this as saying "If a topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be non-notable." For this reason, a reference to WP:GNG deserves no weight in reaching consensus to delete an article.
| 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. |
The general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is sometimes cited as the basis for deleting an article in deletion discussions. This is an improper use of the guideline, since it is a guideline for presuming notability, not a guideline for presuming non-notability. Attempting to use the guideline to presume non-notability is a logical fallacy.
The guideline begins with the following text (as of 2010-10-17): "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" [Emphasis added].
It is a logical fallacy called " denying the antecedent" to read this as saying "If a topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be non-notable." For this reason, a reference to WP:GNG deserves no weight in reaching consensus to delete an article.