Category talk:Wikipedians against notability

Reasons to oppose the notability doctrine

1. It is interpreted as policy on AfD when it's just some essay. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib.
2. Wiki is not paper. Nuff said. However, this is also an issue for the Inclusionists. - Smeelgova 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Project

• If you all started a Wikipedia:WikiProject, that explained your reasoning and such a little better, more people would probably think of joining. As it stands, your current position and specifics are not easily understood. Just how much "notability" are you against? Is there a minimum level still required? These would all be interesting issues to delve into with a Wikipedia:WikiProject. It will be interesting to see how this discussion page and issue develops over time. Yours, Smeelgova 08:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Hear, hear. Actually just a short user essay would be nice to explain why people join this category. Currently, it's only defended by two slogans, "Wiki is not paper" (agree) and "notability is a popularity contest". Sadly, the latter slogan carries some truth, but I would like to see an alternative inclusion principle. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Qwertyus and Smeelgova: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism This is the best essay about it I've seen so far. Benjamin (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cirt: Benjamin (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Renaming the category

• This category should be renamed to something like: Wikipedians who think notability is not a popularity contest but an issue of verifiability. Yours, Smeelgova 23:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Or even just simply: Wikipedians who think notability is not a popularity contest. Yours, Smeelgova 23:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Category in the category

Is it normal for this category to be in the same category? It makes a category tree go on branching ad infinitum in itself... -- Mentifisto 04:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC) :I don't think it is, I've removed the catagory from itself. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Stike that, messed up the removal. Guest9999 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategy: non-notable template. Inclusion: Orphanhood

Marking notability is important. Notability reassures me that someone out there actually uses all the math you can find on here, and makes me spend time on a lot of things I wouldn't assuming it didn't contribute to my general knowledge at all. Articles on non-notable subjects could have a notice, like the cleanup templates. This way users can tell the difference between widely used but technical subjects and complete trivia. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think any non-notable article should have existing links to it above orphanhood to stay in the encyclopedia. This to justify the attention of work and the breakdown in navigability around that article, the key technology of Wikipedia, which we suffer at all because the information is non-trivial. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)