Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Arguments (section)

===Arguments for deleting non-notable articles===
====Non-notable topics do not belong====
Since Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source—much less a vehicle for publication of direct observation—non-notable subjects (in terms of the verifiability and neutrality of the commentators) do not belong in it. Some have said, "Why not write an article on your next-door neighbor's dog, as long as it's verifiable and NPOV?" If the latter is true, then the dog must have attracted some attention from outsiders and hence it is not subject to the concept of notability.

The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Many articles are deleted because the people discussed are non-notable. Sometimes, there is some content in a non-notable article that can be merged into another article. For example, If a British boy wins an award from his police station for creating a new organization scheme for the British Police Cadets, he may write an article about himself. It may be judged that the new organizational scheme was notable while the details of the award ceremony and the identity of the boy were non-notable. In this case, the notable content in the article on the British boy can be merged into a larger article on cadet schemes in Britain.

====There is a precedent====
Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion, although their individual definitions may not be common across the group.

====Subjectivity is not a problem====
The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it. When people mislabel an article as "non-notable", they can easily be convinced/outweighed by more knowledgeable editors. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] is a discussion, after all.

====Notability is not necessarily subjective====
If a subject is not the subject of non-trivial independent coverage, for example feature articles in the mainstream press, how can we verify that it is being covered [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrally]]?  For some editors non-notable is a shorthand for subjects that have not generated enough independent interest to permit of the existence of a verifiable, neutral article, with reliable sources (although some take the idea to be a distinct branch from these policies). There is a difference between an obscure but important and verifiable topic and a topic which is of importance only to its creator, and which therefore has received no external scrutiny.