Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (policy) (section)

== "Notability" really is a terrible name. ==

I've heard it discussed around a fair amount, and I'm sure it's one of those 'perennial proposals' that the veterans here are going to roll their eyes and say "ugh, somebody's bringing THIS up again," but I do think it bears saying. Notability is an ''awful'' descriptor for what we're actually looking for, which is presence in sources. That's 'notedness' if anything, not 'notability', and the inevitable result is that every time you tell someone you can't accept their autobiography/company's article/article about their favourite media thing because it's 'not notable,' they get their haunches up and go on a tirade about how many awards they/the thing have won and how many cool things they/the thing have done, etc. Pretty much every mention of something being notable or not notable has to be accompanied by a mandatory disclaimer of what notability means here and how it doesn't mean what they think it does. It's a thought particularly spurred on by my deletion nomination of the article [[WP:Articles for deletion/Deaglán de Bréadún|Deaglán de Bréadún]], which led the man himself to post a response essentially calling me a nasty person for daring to imply that him and his career aren't notable... which, of course, is not actually what we mean, despite literally saying the words "you aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article"

So, the obvious question is; what would we call it instead? I've heard the term "Criteria for inclusion" mentioned, which I think would be a graceful solution, since you can explain that the criteria for inclusion is presence in sources etc without ever having to use the scary word 'notability.' Whatever alternative option is presented, I do think it is seriously high time that Wikipedia take the big step of retiring the term 'notability' [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 00:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:I agree with you. Notability is a dumb name. However, there's never going to be a consensus to change it. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:And then, what would we call all the lists of "notable" people/residents/alumni/etc.? "People/residents/alumni/etc. who meet the criteria for inclusion"? [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 01:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::I think you could probably still keep those; the definition there would logically run in the opposite direction, they are notable ''because'' they meet the criteria for inclusion. It's not an ideal solution, but obviously cuts down on some of the logistical challenge. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 01:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:Renaming notability has been an [[WP:PEREN]] issue, repeated discussed without finding any term that has a benefit over "notability" that would not be disruptive (how many P&G depend on it) but would be more descriptive. And no, "presence in sources" is an indicator of notability, but not how notability is defined. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::It is undoubtedly true that it would be a lot of work changing the nomenclature all over the project if we got rid of 'notability,' but I don't think "It'd be a lot of work" is a compelling counterargument. There would no doubt be a long transitional period where lingering remains of 'notability' were still all over the place; but that doesn't have to be an issue, it's not like the change has to happen overnight. We could just say "from today on, the term 'notability' is deprecated and we prefer this new term instead" and people can change mentions of it as and when they catch it. Just today I heard about the NSPORTS 2022 RfC where the definition of notability for athletes was radically changed; that too would've had far-reaching implications on the project, but that didn't stop people from doing it just because it was a lot of work ahead of them to clean up the now non-notable athlete articles everywhere. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 01:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::The NSPORT change did not radically change what notability was, just eliminated a very poor presumption of notability (playing one professional game) that had led to thousands of permastubs on athletes that was a constant problem at ANI.
:::We've been through what the downstream impacts of changing the term notability to something else as part of past discussions (because this being PEREN) and its not as simple "from now on it will be known as..." "notability" is embedded in WP culture and in coverage of how WP works, so it would be a massive shift, so any new terms must carry a lot of massive benefit to make it worth the effort to make the change. And dozens of suggestions have been made and failed to show this. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*My 9-year-old essay's time has finally come! [[WP:Noted not notable]]. (Note: It's a very, ''very'' short essay, admittedly.) [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:We could put this in big letters on the notability page and all the spin-off pages like [[WP:42]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 04:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*::This is also a fairly elegant solution, hut unfortunately relies on people actually clicking the link and then actually reading the words on their screen. The 'headline effect' is real when it comes to WP links. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 09:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:<small>Nice essay, {{u|EEng}}. I especially like how the "nutshell" explanation is nearly twice as long as the essay itself  ;)  [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 19:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)</small>
*::<small>[https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1339678097] [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)</small>
*For reference, the last big discussion on this topic that I know of is {{section link|Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 84|RfC on change of name}}, from April 2025. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:Much appreciated. Starting to read through some of that, I think 'eligibility' is quite a strong contender. It's an easily-understood English word already, which perfectly encapsulates the concept being described, and also would actually allow us to broaden our definition in some useful ways (because eligibility is a catch-all term that could include not only the presence of positive indicators like strong sources, but also the absence of negative indicators like [[WP:NOT]] or criteria for speedy deletion.) A subject which is 'eligible' is one that is both suitable for inclusion and unsuitable for deletion, which 'notability' does not currently encapsulate. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 02:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*::No, eligibility is a terrible idea, because it implies a brightline yes/no answer. Notability is a greyscale, its why notability is based on presumptions and not a hardline test. 
*::The only real issue with notability is for editors encountering the term for the first time, and coming to learn that real-world definition of notability is not exactly the same as WP's definition of notability, but reading the P&G should quickly resolve that. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:The only way to get the name changed? would be to propose only ''one'' alternative. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::I disagree, the bugbear for a lot of people seems to be whether we'll get consensus that changing the name is worth the effort. I think people first have to be disgruntled about the old name to be resolved to change it before we worry what the new name ought to be. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 02:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Do you have a proposed ''name''? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:[[The Office (American TV series)|No! God please no!]] This is a [[Wikipedia:Perennial proposals|perennial]] issue based primarily on [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. It’s too late and too entrenched to change and someone is just going to bitch about how dumb “eligibility” is down the line. A better proposal would be outright banning perennial proposals and requiring consensus to unban them before allowing them to be discussed again, since that would require more extraordinary reasoning than “I know this has been talked to death, but just me out, I swear”. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 02:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::While I agree that changing it has a less-than-ideal cost-reward, this post (and the others before it) explain legitimate downsides to the current name besides preference. Also, a discussion to unban a perennial proposal would look almost identical to the proposal itself. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 04:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|A discussion to unban a perennial proposal would look almost identical to the proposal itself.}} Maybe so, but it would force proposers to go through the process ''twice'', which would discourage most proposers from doing it at all and save everyone a lot of time. Additionally, it wouldn’t ''necessarily'' always result in the aforementioned situation— if a proposal was banned because it was a hot-button issue now, it might be uncontroversially removed from the list 10 years later after things cool off, without actually endorsing it. It would be sort of like the [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]] or a [[Wikipedia:GOLD LOCK|gold lock]] for proposals. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:I totally agree with you and I was disappointed that there wasn't consensus to change the name in [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 84#RfC on change of name|the aforementioned April 2025 RfC]]. But given the outcome of said RfC, I struggle to see the point of rehashing the discussion so soon as it's very unlikely that there will be a different outcome. Perhaps give it a year or two. &nbsp;[[User:Mir Novov|<b style="display:inline-flex;text-decoration:inherit;transform:matrix(1,0,0,1.4,1,-2);color:#070">novov</b>]] <b style="font-size:0.6em;filter:grayscale(1)">[[User talk:Mir Novov|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Mir Novov|edits]]</b> 05:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Coverage''' perhaps? Or '''renown'''? Or just '''noted '''... I doubt it'll ever actually change though. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 05:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:''Coverage'' is a distinction without a difference. ''Renown'' is far more pretentious than notability. ''Noted'' is barely even a change and couldn’t be used rationally in a sentence. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
* [[WP:Eligibility]] was recently suggested by Wikipedia expert Bill Beutler. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:Eligibility is the rename option that sucks the least, since it most accurately reflects what “notability” actually means. But “notability” still at least puts a vague idea in people’s heads (namely, is this thing/person significant in some way?) whereas “eligibility” could mean pretty much anything and could actually put a worse idea in people’s heads (namely, eligibility is whatever somebody says it is, or is some arcane ruleset known only to insiders that isn’t easily summarized). [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*::I [[Special:GoToComment/c-Anomie-20250404210100-Mrfoogles-20250404184500|still]] think "notedness" would be better than "eligibility", as "eligibility" seems like it should include non-[[WP:N]] things such as [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 13:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::I don't see that as a negative. We are, ultimately, looking for a term that describes "eligible to be included on Wikipedia." In fact, some of the AfC decline notices literally use "your references do not demonstrate that this subject '''qualifies for a Wikipedia article'''" as a piped link to 'notability' anyway. If anything, having a more comprehensive term would be an advantage, since then you don't run into the tricky situations of 'well, we TECHNICALLY have enough information to presume this person is notable, but there's still not enough coverage to substantiate an article about them' amd so on.
*:::Eligibility includes what we now define as notability, but way more succinctly communicates the point of whether or not something should have an article. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 14:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::Having an all-encompassing term actually referring to just one facet seems like it would make it harder to discuss that facet versus other facets. "Ok, that meets WP:ELIGIBILITY, but it's still not eligible because it doesn't meet [[WP:BLP1E]]." "Wat?" [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 00:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::Exactly. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*::{{tq|“notability” still at least puts a vague idea in people’s heads}}: but I think that’s the ''problem'' with the term. People don’t realize they are encountering a jargon term and substitute their own meaning. I’d argue that “eligibility” is better because there’s more precedent that contextual criteria will define eligibility for a particular thing; it might cue people that they need Wikipedia-specific information. <small>(I’d almost want to try a complete neologism that people would ''know'' they don’t know the meaning of, something like “wikifiability” or “AAOEW” (Article Allowed On En-Wiki) that they’d know they don’t know.)</small> [[User:LEvalyn|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ le <small> 🌸</small> valyn</span>]] ([[User talk:LEvalyn|talk]]) 07:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::Anomie said it best with the “wiki-eligibility is not dictionary definition eligibility” example. ''Notability'' still hits the general vicinity of the right idea; ''eligibility'' doesn’t and has the potential to be more confusing. As for a neologism, I don’t support that either because (on top of being a solution in search of a problem like all these replacement suggestions) it just adds MORE incomprehensible jargon to Wikipedia— which is what this proposal is supposedly trying to '''cut back on.''' [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::I feel like you might have misunderstood my argument. When it comes to the one-word name for this concept, I contend that "trying to cut back on" jargon is counterproductive; any one-word name for this mess of concepts ''is inherently'' jargon. Accordingly, I think there's no point trying to change to something "clearer", but it could possibly be helpful to change to something ''less "clear"'', because it could make the term into a "known unknown" instead of "something you know that isn't so". Personally, when I want to avoid jargon with newbies, I write out a whole explanatory phrase instead (eg "our criteria for a book to have an article"); I think that's the only approach that can actually effectively cut down on jargon. [[User:LEvalyn|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ le <small> 🌸</small> valyn</span>]] ([[User talk:LEvalyn|talk]]) 02:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
*Notability was never a good choice of name, but we've stuck with it because of the cost of changing; it's a QWERTY vs DVORAK problem.  Personally I'd quite like to call it "Citability".—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:I think the 'cost of changing' would quickly be outweighed if you tallied up the editor-hours required and compared it to the editor-hours that have been spent and will continue to be spent in perpetuity explaining to disgruntled would-be article creators why appearing on a list of the Top 100 Best Things doesn't confer notability. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 13:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*::Don't misunderstand: I personally would support most reasonable alternative names because "notability" is still (after all these years) a misleading, dramagenic, and generally awful choice of words.  But there's a non-zero cost of changing and a lot of neophobia to overcome here.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::<small>Is “dramagenic” a word?</small> [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*::As I [[Special:GoToComment/c-Isaacl-20250406060900-Mrfoogles-20250404184500|discussed last April]], personally I encourage everyone to focus on providing more complete explanations on the standards for having an article rather than just linking to a jargon term. The key obstacle is that the community has to want to reduce its use of jargon. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
* It is highly unlikely that the community is going to rename "Notability", this being as noted a perennial proposal that gets enmeshed in the long and complicated history and complicated current understanding of the concept of 'notability' on en.wiki. However, a creative smaller change probably worth exploring might be to create an alternative name for [[WP:GNG]] that somehow does not include the "N". GNG is the aspect of notability that best describes "presence in sources", it is the least likely aspect of notability to get enmeshed in notability politics. I don't have a perfect suggestion offhand, but creating an alternative name for GNG is a smaller task then renaming all of notability, and would capture much of the practical benefit of a full notability rename even if that full rename never happens. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*The community's inertia is such that a proposal to change this isn't a good use of my time or anyone else's. But I agree, and if I had my way I would want the policy not to be a near-synonym of "significant". The practical consequence I see most often is the eliding of "should we as an ambitious global encyclopedia cover this in principle" and "can we as an encyclopedia that cares about verifiability write an article about this in practice". I could go on at length, but a more prosaic name may help us a good bit, perhaps something as plain as "standard for inclusion". [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:“Standard(s) for inclusion” is by FAR the best proposed option so far; but there are multiple “standards for inclusion” beyond notability. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*::{{re|Dronebogus}} This is precisely the distinction that I want to make. To my mind there's not multiple standards for inclusion, because in our most overarching policy language, "notability" is used as a synonym for standards of inclusion. We do have multiple was of showing notability beyond GNG/SIGCOV. And the frequent use of "notable" to mean "has SIGCOV" therefore causes considerable confusion as well. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::"Notability" is one commonly discussed standard, but there are others such as [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 20:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::{{re|Anomie}} I see those as standards for exclusion, which may require the removal of notable topics, but will never compel the inclusion of non-notable topics. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 01:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::::[[wikt:two sides of the same coin|Two sides of the same coin]]. You could just as well say that [[WP:N]] will never compel the inclusion of topics that go against [[WP:BLP]], and so on. It all goes together to determine what's included, i.e. multiple criteria. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
* Wikipedia jargon. We use a word with a meaning that differs from its normal English meaning. Any other word would therefore have the same issue unless we created an entirely new word like "cituated". {{small|My personal favourite is "living persons", which includes dead persons.}} [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 18:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*:I don't think that this is necessarily true; "eligibility" "suitability" and "criteria for inclusion" which have all been mentioned all transparently mean what we would want them to mean; the bar a subject has to pass to get an article. This isn't an unsolvable dilemma, it's just hard work. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 19:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*::"Criteria for inclusion" leads us straight to one of the most common points of confusion: inclusion of an article in the encyclopaedia versus inclusion of details within an article. ''The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it.'' [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 20:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
* {{tq|"Notability" really is a terrible name.}} Yes, you are correct. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 18:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
*Yes, it is really a terrible name.  The fixation that it needs to be one word is also bizarre. Neutral Point of View is not one word, Original Research is not one word, Biography of Living Persons is not one word, Article Title is not one word, etc.: so, Article Criteria, or some such. 'On Wikipedia, Article Criteria is a test . . .'; It meets the AC; it does not meet WP:AC; and done. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 01:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

:* {{Comment}} Unpopular opinion I guess but I like the word "notability," especially when paired with "[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]." Notability gives a lot of wiggle room but suggests there is some minimum for inclusion, and we can adjust what that is.
:[[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 02:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::It’s not an unpopular opinion. I’m pretty sure the silent majority either likes it or has no strong opinion on it. Otherwise we would have changed it by now. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
* I think some people are confusing the aim and the criteria. We really do want to write articles on topics that are notable according to its everyday meaning (that's the aim), but to achieve that in practice we have to make guidelines for notability that editors are able to follow and agree with each other about (that's the criteria). So my opinion is that "notability" is actually the best of the options mentioned so far in this discussion. "Eligibility" is way too vague (neither an aim nor a criterion) and "citeability" is just wrong (that would refer to sources, not topics). The word that has annoyed me the most, for the past 20+ years, is "verifiability", which in wikispeak means something entirely different from its meaning in plain English. In plain English, something is verifiable if its truth can be confirmed, which is why the ancient slogan "verifiability, not truth" is my nomination for the worst own-goal in Wikipedia history. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 10:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:In defense of verifiability, it's purely a question of which frame of reference you're using. Sure, in everyday speech it usually means verifiable [against objective truth] but it's not a stretch or corruption of the meaning that on Wikipedia it means verifiable [against a source text]. The whole point of 'verifiability, not truth' is to clarify that the thing we're verifying against is not objective truth, merely source->text integrity. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 10:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:: No, that was not where "verifiability, not truth" came from (I was here when it was adopted). The "not truth" part refers to "no original research". The idea is that we use what reliable sources say is true and not what we personally believe is true. It isn't a reference to objective truth. The problem with the slogan is that it was commonly taken to mean that Wikipedia doesn't care about getting the facts right, and this misunderstanding got "out there" to our detriment. And we threw it at newcomers before they had a chance to grasp that "verifiability" didn't mean what they thought it meant. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 11:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:When it comes to "verifiability" I view it as "is the notability verifiable." Something can be true, but not notable. There is a lot of stuff about me floating on the internet, my existence is verifiable, however none of it meets the criteria for notability, my notability is not verifiable. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 20:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:I would probably call it "sourceability" which is somewhat more accurate. However, as said before it's one of these entrenched terms that are hard to change. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 14:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

:What name is being proposed, to change "Notability"? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::Nothing currently; I'm not trying to make a proposal, just to discuss the topic. There's no point in proposing a candidate if nobody thinks it should be changed to begin with. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 14:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::No-one can decide. And most likely no decision will be made. This is such an obvious waste of time I don’t really know why I, or any of the many high-profile editors here, dignifying it with a response beyond “[[WP:PERENNIAL]]” [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 14:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I note [[WP:PERENNIAL]] doesn't actually have this topic listed (yet). [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 20:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:"Notability" is fine. It means ''what subject can be noted on Wikipedia''. I don't see a glaring problem with it. [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 14:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::The glaring problem is that that's an extremely unintuitive and niche use of that word, which usually means "important" or "significant" [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 16:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:::That's what "notable" means, while "notability" reflects how much someone is likely to be notable, which matches the intent of what WP's notability does. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::::But "importance" is subjective (my wife is important to me, the road I take to work is important to me, the band my friend started when he was 15 is important to him; none of them are notable in the Wikipedia sense). "Notability" (or at least the GNG) aims to be an objective standard that is either met or not and has little to do with what most people think of as "importance". [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 20:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Also worth adding that we do "note" unnotable things on Wikipedia, just within articles rather than as standalone topics. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Its far from an objective standard, which is why notability is a rebuttable presumption. Show that the topic is given in-depth coverage from at least a few independent, reliable sources (generally being secondary sources), and we'll presume that the topic can merit a full article. But there's so much variability in what qualifies as in-depth coverage, how many and what kind of sources, etc. that its far to call the test solely objective. Otherwise, we'd not have any problem at AFD with deletion. 
:::::But we do associate being notable as if the topic was important enough to independent authors to cover in-depth, that is, is the topic demonstrated the quality of being notable based on sourcing. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::When you read that notability is necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia how is it not glaringly obvious that it is Wikipedia that sets the standards for what is notable?--[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 18:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:While we’re here, why don’t we look at all the other less-than-ideal names used for rules on Wikipedia? [[WP:NPOV]] (which isn’t neutral) [[WP:IAR]] (don’t actually do this) [[WP:DELETION]] (pages aren’t deleted). I could probably find lots of examples. Wikipedia is just like any hobbyist subculture in that it has a lot of weird jargon that doesn’t necessarily mean what the dictionary and common sense say it means. “Fixing” that will just create more problems as now both newbies AND veteran editors are confused by the weird new terminology. On top of that Newbies still won’t understand what it’s meant to convey, veterans will just keep using the same terminology they always used, and eventually it will just get reverted back with the same unnecessary cost as changing it. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 15:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

*Notability ''is'' a terrible name because it's easily conflated with "importance", which is subjective—everything is important to someone. I've previously advocated for "'''criteria for inclusion'''". [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 15:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:One word synonym could just be "Includable." [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 20:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
*::It looks like we have a nice set of redirects in the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion]] line.  I think that's a good thing.  People can use whichever they like. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*I prefer "Notability". While "criteria for inclusion" would convey the idea, it would be awkward to use regularly. None of the other suggestions above work for me. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 19:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*:[[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 84#c-WhatamIdoing-20250404205700-Mrfoogles-20250404193100|My POV]] hasn't changed since the discussion last year, specifically that we should eventually change this, and that the way to go about it is to pick some other word or phrase and use ''both'', e.g., "On Wikipedia, '''notability''', or '''eligibility''', is a test used by editors..." or "On Wikipedia, '''notability''' is the '''article creation criteria''' that editors use..."  Then editors have a choice, and if they choose to say "It's [[Wikipedia:Notable]]" or if they choose to say "It meets the [[Wikipedia:Article creation criteria]]" or if they choose to say "I think this meets our [[Wikipedia:Eligibility]] standards", then that's fine (though it'd be preferable if the guideline suggested a single alternate name). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

:Hey @[[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]], I'm the person who started the last massive discussion. Good luck. The main message I came out of it with is there will be many more opposing people in actual RfCs rather than discussions; I started an RfC thinking I would have significantly more support than I did based on my experience discussing it at the idea lab. I think the only way to make this work is to make a smaller change first -- maybe some sort of movement among AfD contributors to use eligibility (linking to notability) would work to get it off the ground, but I have no idea how that would be organized. Maybe a WikiProject? [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 20:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
*Can we at least '''footnote the [[WP:N]] lead sentence''' with an explanation along the lines of:{{tqb|(1) Wikipedia notability is largely independent of real-world notability, (2) while this is confusing, we continue to use the word because [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 61#Describing Notability in plain English|multiple]] [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 65#"Eligibility", "Suitability", or "Admissibility" instead of "Notability"|discussions]] have failed to find a better one, and (3) alternative names (that have been considered, but not adopted) include ''notedness'', ''criteria for inclusion'', ''eligibility'', ''suitability'', ''admissibility'', and ''wikinotability''.}} New editors start out assuming that Wikipedia notability is at least somewhat related to real-world notability, which isn't helped by WP:N statements like {{tq|Determining notability does not ''necessarily'' depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity}}. While new editors don't start by reading all the PAGs, [[WP:N]] and [[WP:GNG]] are quoted so often they'll likely see them first, making it even more important these pages clarify common misconceptions. An overview of previous discussions will also be of value to more experienced editors. [[User:Preimage|Preimage]] ([[User talk:Preimage|talk]]) 06:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Alternatively, we could remove the term altogether (in effect, making WP:N a [[self-referential acronym]]): "On Wikipedia, '''WP:N''' is a test used by editors..." [[User:Preimage|Preimage]] ([[User talk:Preimage|talk]]) 07:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
*::Please note that the existence of the term "Notability" is essential to a joke on the signpost. I think it was in the comix section of the last January edition. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-11404-95|&#126;2026-11404-95]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-11404-95|talk]]) 19:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
* I dunno why people have complained how terrible "notability" is other than... probably it's unfair to those who may not be "notable" but might deserve an article perhaps. This is more akin to [[efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act|(failed?) efforts to repeal]] and (failed) [[constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act]], both perhaps time- and money-wasting. Right? Frankly, "notability" has been fine as-is, despite hostile backlash and all, and something that consensus should practice often. Too bad certain others here wanna change it. BTW, have standards of "notability" been that low or that high? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 19:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
*I like [[User:Preimage|Preimage]]'s solution of referring to Notability as a native concept abstracted from outside usage, but I like better the idea of changing the word notability. I've created '''[[WP:WOTABILITY]]''' to try to best differentiate outside notability with WP's notability. If anyone has any better idea than my sort of clunky one please share - I suspect this may be a big problem in editor retention, to have such an onerous stumbling block placed so early in editor lifetime. [[User:Embyarby|Embyarby]] ([[User talk:Embyarby|talk]]) 04:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*I am not sure what is wrong with the word notability. There are lots of citable subjects that are not really notable. Citability (is that a word) does not necessarily mean that the subject alone is notable, unless of course those citations come from notable or established sources. Wikipedia has much bigger issues right now than the usage of notability for establishing subjects. '''[[User:Words in the Wind|<span style="color: #FF0000;">Words in the Wind</span>]]'''<span style="color: #00FF00;">([[User talk:Words in the Wind|talk]])</span> 21:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

:While I very much agree with this, I'm not sure what singular/compound word could replace it.
:At AfC, I've started to refer to Notability to newcomers as "what Wikipedia calls 'notability'", or just saying "hasn't been covered in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources". Nothing will scare someone off for good than saying that the topic they're writing about isn't notable, or perhaps even that THEY themselves aren't notable, in the case of [[WP:AUTOBIO|autobiographies]] (which can very easily be taken as a passive-aggressive insult!).
:I do agree with @[[User:Preimage|Preimage]] - putting something at the top of [[WP:N]] to differentiate between real-world notability would be good. Or maybe even a change to the "This page in a nutshell" banner.
:I do think a newbie friendly page to the notability guidelines could work out. It would be more detailed than [[Help:Introduction]], but less jargony than other P&G pages. Pretty much, a line-by-line breakdown of key points like [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:NTEMP]], [[WP:WHYN]]. [[User:EatingCarBatteries|<span>EatingCarBatteries</span>]] <sub>([[Special:Contributions/EatingCarBatteries |contribs]] &#124; [[User_talk:EatingCarBatteries|talk]])</sub> 05:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:"Notability" is clearly the best option. As {{u|Masem}} noted, "eligibility" is awful because it implies that notability is binary, which is only true if you treat the blurry line between inclusion and exclusion like an obnoxious [[WP:WIKILAWYER]]. "Notability" clearly means ''notable to Wikipedia'' – just like events notable to ''[[Kotaku]]'' and to ''[[The Law Society Gazette]]'' will have minimal overlap. Theoretically, ''that'' concept is capturable in "Relevance", which I haven't seen discussed here yet, but (just preempting this, because the anti-"notability" camp is ostensibly desperate for any alternative) this is even worse: 1) it's a lateral move at best because we're a general-purpose encyclopedia, and 2) it would completely overload the common word "relevant" across Wikipedia.
:Having read this entire discussion, the suggestion is well-intentioned but nonsensical bikeshedding. No better term has been put forward (because, in my opinion, it can't be – unless we all decide on "cromulent" and use our hivemind to collectively understand it), the concept has already been baked-in for over 20 years, multiple attempts to change it in the past have ended in failure, the definition is ''[[Wikipedia:Notability|literally right there]]'' and plastered around any discussion thereof if there's any confusion, the consequence of misunderstanding it is excruciatingly low-stakes, most misunderstandings of any real consequence come from not reading guidelines that a word or three could never capture on their own or meaningfully encourage someone to read, and in 99.9% of cases, it comports with the lay meaning just fine anyway. <b>[[User:TheTechnician27|<span style="color: #00a9ff"><i>TheTechnician27</i></span>]]</b> [[User talk:TheTechnician27|<span style="color: blue">(Talk page)</span>]] 01:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::Notability/Eligibility/whatever you want to call it should sound binary, because whether we have a [[Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article]] for a given subject is also binary.
::(Also, did you read the literal "definition"?  The one that says "Notability is a test"?  Notability is not a test.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::I prefer to treat the issue of notability as; "is notable::notability has not yet been established". There will always be a grey area, border notability, where we will argue over the notability of a topic, a point where finding one more piece of significant coverage in a reliable source might push the topic over the line to notability, or an obscure topic captures enough attention in the real world to result in new significant coverage in reliable sources (I repeatedly reverted attempts of a certain musician to add themselves to Wikipedia until one day I saw that they had finally made enough of a splash to get significant coverage in reliable sources). [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 16:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)