Administrivia There Is No Such Thing As Notability Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

10:33:49 AM Jul 16th 2014
I wish Wikipedia was more like TV Tropes. The problem with Wikipedia "notability" is that the sources they cite are often prejudiced. For example, I wasn't allowed to write an article about Boise because the only source I could site was my own experience living in Boise but I've noticed other articles that cited sources that were written by people who had no firsthand knowledge of the subject they were writing about. So basically, Wikipedia becomes a form of hearsay because all you have to do is get your prejudicial opinions published and then you can cite yourself in Wikipedia and say whatever prejudicial thing you want and it must be true.

I wish there was a better way to authenticate material. No system, (citing sources or giving examples) is fool proof.
11:15:00 AM Jul 16th 2014

Personal experience is not a reliable source. That's why you can't make a page on that basis there. This page provides more details.

As a sidenote, getting your opinions published in a way that makes them acceptable to Wikipedia standards requires far more than merely putting them on the Internet. Reliable sources are not hearsay, either.

And to be fair, this is not the page for this kind of discussion, really.

06:19:20 PM Feb 2nd 2014
Does this apply to things other than examples or work pages? For example, can any show have a recap page?
12:23:55 AM Feb 3rd 2014
No, it's strictly a "what gets examples and work pages" rule. It's sometimes taken out of context, though.

As for recap pages, if there is enough material, sure.
09:58:01 AM Oct 9th 2013
This is a really bad rule. Basically anyone can make an entry about anything, no matter how terrible or how politically incorrect it is.
10:08:21 AM Oct 9th 2013
edited by
You have summarized the rule accurately. Please take it to the forums if you would like to challenge it, providing reasons for why it is bad.
10:05:10 AM Dec 10th 2013
No real point. He'd lose.
11:23:42 AM Dec 10th 2013
Well, yes, but it's still the proper place for it rather than this discussion page.
11:48:54 AM Dec 10th 2013
Also, the original poster of this discussion has been booted.
10:54:54 AM Nov 27th 2012
What just stories posted on sites like Mibba? Are they allowed, and if so what section would they go under?
11:36:29 AM Nov 27th 2012
Yep, those are allowed; they are published on the web. If the last part of your question refers to namespace, Literature/ is used for web novels.
11:57:08 AM Nov 27th 2012
Cool, thanks.
09:43:26 PM Aug 23rd 2012
Hi, my name is Chris Cutter, I'm the co-founder and head writer for The Awesome Blog, a blog that covers everything from, social commentary, comedic articles, and serial novels. I'm also a troper, and was wondering if, because of this trope, my associate and I could create a page for our blog? Thank you in advance. :)
01:28:35 AM Aug 24th 2012
Yes, you can. Make sure you have at least three tropes about it to start with or it could get cut, and put it in the Blog/ namespace. See also How to Create a Works Page, and good luck!
03:50:33 PM Aug 24th 2012
edited by ChrisCutter
Awesome thank you :) Already rolling under the Blog/ namespace. How would I add a picture (our logo) to make the article more catching?
02:39:04 AM Aug 25th 2012
Use the image uploader to get it on our server. Images in Wiki Pages has formatting tips.
04:14:01 PM Apr 25th 2012
edited by banedoyle
"We consider every work notable. Unless it is nothing but porn. We don't need porn in order to understand storytelling."

... I am extremely confused as to what is considered "nothing but porn" here now after what happened. Is it "anything with shown sexual content, especially if the character is underage by USA law or looks underage, and anything that has pedophilia undertones even without erotic content" now?
10:18:14 PM May 24th 2012
That section looks like an obvious rule patch to me.
07:02:53 AM May 25th 2012
^This particular rule is for Porn Without Plot or Fanservice Without Plot. The paedo rules are to be discussed in the Aboud Content Violations Discussions forum thread in the Content Violations forum.
04:20:39 PM Dec 15th 2011
No Real Life Examples, Please! states that "a work portraying real life is still a work", and examples of how a work portrays a real-life subject are fine. So I guess these are the exceptions to there being no such thing as notability: where Wikipedia requires that a subject be mentioned in reliable sources, no-real-life tropes require that a subject be mentioned in works. Where did I err?
04:17:34 PM May 23rd 2012
There is no such thing as notability with regard to works. Real life is not a work of fiction, political speeches aside.
07:35:52 AM Jun 10th 2011
edited by TripleElation
For extra effect, imagine Uncle Vernon shouting this at Harry Potter- who soon discovers that his parents died not in a car accident, but a heated VfD debate, then goes on to become one of the greatest Wikipedia editors in the history of the world.
10:12:23 AM Nov 3rd 2010
How far is this valid? Of course, it applies to tropes and examples, that's for sure. Does it also apply to works, so may you, for example, create a page about a book that, let's say, has only been published in German and had a print run of 5000 copies? Or, to go even further, the author of said book? May he have his own page? And then there are, of course, celebrities, like Barack Obama - how much of a celebrity do one have to be? And what about the Useful Notes section? Does anything that may be useful - for example, a long explanation of the ruling system of Charlemagne - deserve its own page? Basically, where are the borders (if there are any)?
10:20:22 AM Nov 3rd 2010
This applies to all works. All works are admitted.

If you want to write up a page on a creator of whatever fame, it is admissible, as long as it list tropes related to the creator. Not an encyclopedia article, a description and a list of tropes.
12:50:55 PM Oct 11th 2010
Could we add a bit of a corollary? I've seen some things that, "No Such Thing As Notability" aside, really don't need to be on the page. I remember one reference to an online RP that someone was in once. TINSTAN aside, having that on the page doesn't really help anyone to understand the trope better.
05:38:02 AM Oct 12th 2010
Neither does six dozen references to Anime works that only five people outside of Japan have ever seen, yet we don't stop those examples.
10:32:34 PM Apr 29th 2010
I was thinking we could add a note about how the reverse applies too: just because something is well-known or popular; "notable" by other standards, doesn't mean it has a page already, and rather than complaining or being SHOCKED about it not being there, then add it oneself or put it on the List of Shows That Need Summary.

To be fair, I haven't really seen anything like that, so I may be trying to address a problem that doesn't exist, but that's why we have discussion pages after all!
09:15:20 PM Nov 17th 2012
Collapse/Expand Topics