History Administrivia / ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability

This is not Wikipedia. You will see these words written in many places on the website. One of the main ways we are different from them is our take on "notability."

If it fits the trope description, then it can be put in. All it requires is someone to put it in there. Simple as that. It could be a multi-million viewer Creator/{{ABC}} {{sitcom}}, or an all-but-forgotten Japanese [[VideogameTropes videogame]], or a SpriteComic about ''VideoGame/EarthBound1994'' that [[OrphanedSeries died after seven strips]].

If it fits the trope description, then it can be put in. All it requires is someone to put it in there. Simple as that. It could be a multi-million viewer Creator/{{ABC}} {{sitcom}}, or an all-but-forgotten Japanese [[VideogameTropes videogame]], or a SpriteComic about ''VideoGame/EarthBound'' that [[OrphanedSeries died after seven strips]].

We consider every work notable. But works that are nothing but porn [[Administrivia/TheContentPolicyAndThe5PCircuit aren't appropriate to host on this site]]. We don't need porn in order to understand storytelling.

Much of our wiki relies on the "Examples" section, where we pull our many articles together. Every now and then you might see a WikipediaUpdater who will delete your example with no reason. A small Administrivia/EditWar of delete/restore will start, before someone on the discussion page brings up "notability." This page is your response.

!Just because it's notable doesn't mean it's safe to host

If it fits the trope description, then it can be put in. All it requires is someone to put it in there. Simple as that. It could be a multi-million viewer Creator/{{ABC}} {{sitcom}}, or an all-but-forgotten Japanese [[VideogameTropes videogame]], or a SpriteComic about ''VideoGame/EarthBound'' that [[StillbornSerial died after seven strips]].

Other than that, all we ask is that [[SquarePegRoundTrope the examples fit the trope]]. Go on, have fun.

!Notability itself is not notable

Yes, we mean that phrasing. Critical ratings, "top X" rankings, popularity, revenue, awards, and other statistical facts about a work's public reception are not our primary purpose. The cultural impact of a work is interesting information; in that context, awards, sales figures, or popularity rankings may be relevant. Definitely talk about that (briefly). But bare information like how much it grossed and how many critics liked isn't what we're for.

!Verifiability is important

The main reason that we require DarthWiki/UnpublishedWorks to sit in their own section of the site is because it's impossible to verify that what their creator says about them is true. While notability is not a standard we apply, ''verifiability'' is. It should be possible for an interested third party to find a work that's documented on our wiki and see for themselves the tropes that we've said are present. This means that works that are inaccessible to the general public (on private servers, requiring private invitations, and the like) should not be documented on our wiki unless there's a [legal] public version available. [[note]]Closed alpha and beta versions of games are considered "unpublished", but we allow articles for them as long as they contain only content that's publicly released.[[/note]]

!Non-examples are ''not'' always notable

While most forms of PlayingWithATrope abide by this rule, AvertedTrope is an exception. See [[AvertedTrope its page]] for more on this.

The main reason that we require UnpublishedWorks to sit in their own section of the site is because it's impossible to verify that what their creator says about them is true. While notability is not a standard we apply, ''verifiability'' is. It should be possible for an interested third party to find a work that's documented on our wiki and see for themselves the tropes that we've said are present. This means that works that are inaccessible to the general public (on private servers, requiring private invitations, and the like) should not be documented on our wiki unless there's a [legal] public version available. [[note]]Closed alpha and beta versions of games are considered "unpublished", but we allow articles for them as long as they contain only content that's publicly released.[[/note]]

Yes, we mean that phrasing. Critical ratings, "top X" rankings, popularity, revenue, awards, and other statistical facts about a work's public reception are not something we care about. This means that you should not add that information to the description, nor should you make indexes for "songs that were on the Billboard Top 200" or "actors with Oscar awards".

The cultural impact of a work is interesting information. Definitely talk about that (briefly). But information like how much it grossed and how many critics liked it can go on Wikipedia. That's not what we're for.

![[AC: All works are notable.]]

![[AC:By, For, and About Fans]]

![[AC:Just Because It's Notable Doesn't Mean It's Safe To Host]]

Much of our wiki relies on the "Examples" section, where we pull our many articles together. Every now and then you might see a WikipediaUpdater who will delete your example with no reason. A small EditWar of delete/restore will start, before someone on the discussion page brings up "notability." This page is your response.

Wikipedia tries in many regards to be the opposite of what we are. We want to be fun, interesting and a cool place to [[TVTropesWillRuinYourLife sink hours of time]]. Wikipedia wants to be a compilation of previously published facts from respected sources. SeriousBusiness. Presented with a choice between serious and fun, we went with fun.

We have examples ranging from media as diverse as {{Film}} to FanFiction and everything in between. Removing tropes, examples... anything... because of "notability" stifles the wiki. It can intimidate new writers who wanted to put in an example they liked and had it shot down. Hell, tropes are ''defined'' by their examples.

Wikipedia tries in many regards to be the opposite of what we are. We want to be fun, interesting and a cool place to [[TVTropesWillRuinYourLife sink hours of time]]. Wikipedia wants to be a compilation of previously published facts from respected sources. Serious business. Presented with a choice between serious and fun, we went with fun.

Wikipedia tries in many regards to be the opposite of what we are. We want to be fun, interesting and a cool place to sink hours of time. Wikipedia wants to be a compilation of previously published facts from respected sources. Serious business. Presented with a choice between serious and fun, we went with fun.

This is a double-edged sword. Someone could add an example they made up and there is really nothing you could do to stop them. If the discussion finds an example to be purely fiction then it might get deleted, ''might''. That's the way of things. But remember, we're here to have fun. Don't let this stuff burn you out.

This is a double-edged sword. Someone could add an example they made up and there is really nothing you could do to stop them. If the discussion finds an example to be a purely fiction then it might get deleted, ''might''. That's the way of things. But remember, we're here to have fun. Don't let this stuff burn you out.