Ikwipedia:Notability: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
For a topic to have an article, it must be both '''notable''' and have [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable sources|acceptable sources]] that can be cited to support the descriptions of it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability As in Wikipedia], if there are no acceptable sources for a subject, it is not sufficiently notable and there should not be an article on it. | |||
==Inherent notability of [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|hypothesis]]-adjacent topics== | |||
Certain topics are so paradigm-shifting that they are '''inherently notable''', even if they have insufficient reliable-source coverage to have a Wikipedia page. Such topics include: | |||
''Paranormal phenomena:'' People, places, events, things, entities, and concepts; evidence of the existence of [[non-human intelligent beings]], etc. | |||
''Speculative concepts:'' Unproven concepts such as alleged [[exotic technologies]]. | |||
''Major wrongdoing of public concern:'' Any [[Ikwipedia:Published|published]] [[conspiracy theory]] based on [[Ikwipedia:Testimonial accounts|testimonial accounts]]; [[false flag]]s; alleged [[systemic-deception theory|systemic deception]]s of all kinds; etc. | |||
The mere existence of a claim regarding these topics warrants documentation of the topic of the claim, regardless of whether it can be verified by a particular standard. The documentation of these topics helps illustrate what the world would be like, so to speak, if these claims were true, supporting the [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|broader hypothesis of how these various claims might fit together coherently]]. Presenting topics in an encyclopedic synthesizes the available claims about them and shows how they interrelate, helping to provide a clearer understanding of a [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|framework that accounts for them all]]. | |||
==Limitations== | |||
This permissive notability standard does not necessarily extend to all topics. Content that is not paradigm-shifting that would not be in a good Wikipedia article on an otherwise-notable subject and supported by otherwise-reliable sources — such as claims that primarily concern public figures' private lives — are not automatically considered notable unless they specifically relate to inherently notable topics. |