User:Stalwart111/Notability in context

This essay is part of a discussion about the concept of notability in context; that a subject's wider context should be taken into account when assessing notability rather than a simple assessment of the volume of notability-compliant independent, verifiable sources. In many ways it is an expanded discussion of WP:IDONTKNOWIT.

Notability

There seems to be two trains of thought about the concept of Wikipedia notability:

The first is an adherence to the Wikipedia notability guidelines without fail. These editors assert that if there are no verifiable, independent sources to prove the notability of a subject, the subject is deemed not notable.

The second is the assertion that a subject can be notable without complying with notability guidelines.

The essay, Wikipedia:Inherent_notability, addresses some of these issues.

An article about a subject has no sources, so people claim that "the subject is not notable". That's a fallacy! The problem is not notability, but lack of verification. Only after one has searched for sources and failed to find any can one suggest: "the subject does not seem to be notable". We can prove that a subject is notable, but we cannot prove the converse; we can only note that no proof was found to establish notability.

This essay attempts to address the second of the two assertions by suggesting a number of considerations relating to the context of a given subject that might be taken into account when assessing notability.

Uniqueness = non-notable

It is true that just because something is unique does not mean it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But this concept seems to have been extended to the converse to mean that where a subject's uniqueness has resulted in limited commentary on that subject, the subsequent lack of references renders the subject not-notable.

This is especially the case in instances where a subject's geographic, cultural or historical remoteness has meant that very few commentators, historians or other significant persons or publications have ever made reference to the subject. In these instances, a lack of reliable references might suggest to some that the subject is not notable; no one else has noted x, therefore x must not be notable.

Example: Noo'on is a small village in Africa. While Noo'on is not a significant commercial hub, it is on a local trade route. Tourists visit Noo'on as part of regular tours conducted by a large local tour company. A field near Noo'on was the site of a tribal battle in the 1700s.

Our example village, though, has a problem. Not many people in the English-speaking world have heard of Noo'on. Stories about the village are passed on from generation to generation. While the tribal battle was significant to the local people, it rates but a passing mention in the history of the African continent. The only online reference to Noo'on is from the local tourist office - not exactly an independent source. Without an article about Noo'on, Wikipedia articles for the tour company, the country, the continent and the history of the tribal battle would all have to make do without geographic references.

An editor, whose parents visited Noo'on on a holiday, creates an article for Noo'on, citing the only website that makes reference to the village. Not long after, the article is cited as lacking references and not complying with notability guidelines.

A plain reading of each WP:3PARTY and WP:N would suggest that the article does not comply with either. The references are not independent, nor are there enough of them. But no amount of effort, on anyone's part, is going to result in enough substantive online or offline coverage of Noo'on so as to result in it meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

We, as editors, might consider that Noo'on is notable enough to justify an article in its own right but making an argument that the article should stay is almost impossible when faced with another editor who simply cites WP:N and WP:3PARTY as reasons it should be deleted.

Instead, perhaps consideration should be given to a form of notability which takes into account the wider context in which that subject exists.

Notability in context

The concept of notability in context would take into account the historical and socioeconomic context of a subject in addition to Wikipedia's ordinary WP:N criteria.

Where a subject is historically unique, consideration should be given to any technical features which might otherwise have prevented general historians from assessing that subject and making comments on it which would ordinarily constitute references which would allow an article to comply with WP:N. Consideration should be given to assessing an article as notable where it can be reasonably argued that the relative technicality of a subject has resulted in a lack of written material about that subject which would otherwise be referenced.

Where a subject is culturally unique, consideration should be given to how information is passed between those involved in that subject. Just because information is passed from individual to individual in a manner other than in writing (which could otherwise be cited), it does not mean the information has not been passed on. Consideration should be given to assessing an subject as notable where it can be reasonably argued that the information contained in any article about that subject is an accepted part of a particular culture but is not published and thus cannot be referenced.

Where a subject is geographically remote, consideration should be given to the regularity with which the subject has been seen or visited. Consideration should be given to assessing an article as notable where it can be reasonably argued that the subject's remoteness has resulted in a lack of first-hand contact which has, in turn, resulted in a relatively lesser number of reports, documentary evidence or accounts available to be referenced.

Contextual importance

In the same vein, there seems to be a disparity between the notability of x in one country and the notability of an equivalent x in another country. Often, the disparity is the result of the importance the local population gives the context in which x exists. It's a disparity which likely shouldn't "technically" exist on Wikipedia if all notability is considered equal. Of course, it isn't because, like it or not, we all take context into account.

Though sports metaphors can dumb-down an argument, in this context one is appropriate.

Association football or soccer is incredibly popular in England. After the Premier League and the Championship comes Football League One which is essentially third division football. The division includes Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and Charlton Athletic F.C. with stadiums of 39,000 capacity and 27,000 capacity respectively. They have large fan bases and professional players. In this context, creating a page for defender Lewis Buxton (Sheffield Wednesday) is entirely appropriate. In fact, it would be considered lax not to create one.

In Australia, football is popular, but nowhere near as popular as it is in England. In Australia, First Division teams in the Hyundai A-League have stadiums with 30,000 capacity (or even less). The third division (technically Football League One's Australian equivalent) is the NSW Super League. Teams certainly don't have stadiums with 30,000 capacity (most don't have stadiums at all). Almost every player is an amateur player and those that aren't are usually on secondment.

In this context, creating a page for a Super League player would be inappropriate (I'd be surprised if there was even an example article I could direct you to). Yes, technically they play in the Australian third division and the equivalent in England would have them playing in front of 30,000 people but in Australia, in the Australian context, they simply can't be considered notable. It is inappropriate, though some editors have tried, to argue that all players in all third divisions are inherently notable because they play in the third-highest division in their country. Similar arguments for notability, however, seem to be a long-standing tenets of discussions about Wiki:Politicians and Wikipedia:Inherent notability.

Conclusion

The current Wikipedia culture, it would seem, is to consider context important, as long as it reinforces existing standards. That doesn't seem like a particularly healthy way for the encyclopedia to grow.

The suggestions are not designed to mitigate against the provisions of Wikipedia:Insignificant or Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and should not be used to argue for the notability of articles which are genuinely not-notable. Likewise, context should be used to argue against the inclusion of articles which might be notable in another context but which, sadly, are not in their own context.

Editors should be aware of context and understand that context can often make the difference between notable and not-notable. Simply citing a rigid policy for the purposes of ending an argument doesn't feel like a particularly fulfilling way of making your point and there's a reason - it's not. All things have context and without context, value is diminished.

See also

• Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
• Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not