Wikipedia talk:Notability

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: G.F. (2013-05-06). "Who really runs Wikipedia?". Make Use Of. Alexandra Thom (16 July 2013). "Writing Women Back Into History". Brooklyn Museum. Seth Stephans-Davidowitz (22 March 2014). "The Geography of Fame". The New York Times. Stephen Harrison (26 March 2019). "The Notability Blues". Slate. Sanghapali Aruna (15 December 2019). "How Wikipedia cancels Dalit icons". Deccan Chronicle. Manjula Selvarajah (19 August 2021). "Canadian Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias, study finds". CBC.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

I feel that WP:NNC is too strongly-worded. While it is true that notability guidelines are not written with article content in mind, many of them are still valuable as a rough guideline for assessing due weight within articles. I've written an essay expressing my thoughts on this in more detail, WP:DUENOTABILITY, but the summary is that - while clearly notability guidelines shouldn't be used as a red-line for inclusion or exclusion within articles, and clearly the threshold for having just eg. a sentence on something is different than the threshold for having an entire article, notability guidelines discussing different types of sources are still valuable for a rough eyeball estimate of "how much weight does this sourcing justify?", since the question they aim to answer ("is this worthy of notice") is basically the same. Full disclaimer: I spun this off of a discussion about sustained and due weight when I realized the issue I had with it might be more specifically with NNC. --Aquillion (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with you, because I believe that that notability guidelines are totally inapplicable to article content discussions.

What's applicable isn't Wikipedia:Notability, aka the fact of qualifying for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. It would be IMO more accurate to say that the same things that justify creation of an article (e.g., independent reliable sources) are useful and valuable for multiple purposes, including determining due weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing - this seems here to be a conflation of the more common sense of "notability" (worthy of note) with WP:N (which reflects wiki-notability, a highly insular and esoteric sense of 'notability' that refers to as WAID said, whether or not a topic qualifies for a separate article). I don't think Wikipedia's guidelines on notability should be conflated or mixed with the question/idea of "worthy of notice". While you may deem it useful to view WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT through the lens of the guidelines at WP:N, that calls for clarification of WP:DUE rather than changing WP:N. Katzrockso (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a reason that WP:DUE points to our NPOV policy, and not to our Notability guidelines. Both require good sourcing, but they are discussing different concepts. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

However, if consensus of editors on a page feel it's necessary, inclusion of content can be restricted to topics that have blue links and presumed to meet wp:N. Just that that's not something required or suggested by P&G. Masem (t) 20:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but that's specific to lists, and already mentioned at NNC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT are the right policy. But just as a matter of normal practice, I do see people cite WP:N when removing largely primary sourced sections. Sometimes the guidelines are out of step with normal practice, and sometimes normal practice is out of step with guidelines. It's hard to say. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If we renamed this guideline/concept, then people would eventually quit getting so confused about whether "notable" means the dictionary definition or something else.

Or, I guess, we could engage in a "training program" by reverting anyone who blanks part of article content with "non-notable" as the edit summary, using WP:NNC as the explanation. If you get promptly reverted for misusing that term, you'll probably figure out a different term to use when blanking article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone using 'non-notable' isn't using it in the Wikipedia WORDSALAD way, but saying it's not a notable piece of content about the subject. If a newbie edit mixes up policy the best idea would be to ask them if they mean WP:BALASP (or one of the other appropriate policy reasons for removing content) instead of WP:NOTABLE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Notability" is not about notability. It means "defines/ meets the main criteria for existence of a separate article." Including that the meta statement at WP:notability incorporates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not by reference. So by definition it's not about article content. Editorial discretion for incorporates multiple criteria, mostly intuitively. The closest one to real world notability is what wp:weight attempts to do, although it failed/fails miserably at that. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The main part of WP:LISTN says:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

This seems to confuse people. In particular, there is confusion about what it means for a subject to be discussed "as a group or set". Some editors are only comfortable if they can find a source that says something like "Considering all the ___ 'as a group', we see..." In practice, we don't require that. I've been contemplating an example for some time, and I think I have hit on a simple rule that would illustrate the easiest case, namely:

• Y We have an article about chemical elements, which means that sources discuss atomic elements as a group. Therefore, a separate List of chemical elements is likely to be acceptable.
• N We have articles about some individual restaurants in Smallville – Alice's All-U-Can-Eat, Bob's Bistro and Chris' Cafe – but we don't have sources to support an article about Restaurants in Smallville, so we probably shouldn't have a List of restaurants in Smallville.

I would expect this to require a disclaimer/footnote saying that the creation of a non-list article is not a requirement. Are there any other downsides? Examples that would be more informative? Is this a bad idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's the first problem: Will this cause problems for someone who wants to merge the articles about the three Smallville restaurants into a single page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If there is no general information about restaurants in Smallville, then these three shouldn't be merged. Just like we shouldn't have an article on 3 otherwise unrelated people from Smallville, and an article "people from Smallville" wouldn't be accepted: a "List of people from Smallville" should point to articles about notable people, not contain mini-articles on some people either. Fram (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

How would this apply to fictional characters, which I believe commonly abuses NLIST? Would an article on a TV or book series warrant a list on all of its characters? I think this is a step in the right direction, but an example involving fictional characters is necessary. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Some such lists would be acceptable, and others wouldn't. Do you have a rule of thumb that you think would be useful for deciding when to create a separate list and when to merge? As a matter of WP:SIZE, I would assume that a work with a zillion characters might need to split, even if we otherwise wouldn't be so interested in having a separate list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

List of characters should only exist if the majority of characters can be discussed through significant secondary coverage but not to a point where each could have its own standalone article, and of course where there would be a size issue for inclusion on the main work's page. A list of characters that relies solely on primary sources should not exist and it instead included on the main work. Masem (t) 20:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. The reason I bring this up is there is a dispute on Talk:List of Harry Potter characters regarding me removing unnotable entries from the list. I think the criteria needs to change to account for what is currently happening. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond, once we have decided to have a List of Harry Potter characters at all, then we're done with Wikipedia:Notability. That's because Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. It's not appropriate to remove "unnotable entries" from a list merely because they're non-notable, because list entries aren't supposed to be judged against whether the entry qualifies for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article (←a redirect to WP:N).

What editors need to do is come to an agreement about the WP:List selection criteria for that page. If you want to argue that the list should be restricted to characters about which we could write a whole article if someone put in the effort to do so ("notable"), or even more significantly restricted to characters about which someone already wrote a whole article ("blue link"), then a discussion about list selection criteria is the place to do that.

Otherwise, which characters to include/exclude is a decision that should be made according to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It also sounds like it would be helpful for you to know that "indiscriminate" means random and haphazard ("List of some of the fictional characters in some stories") and neither "stuff I don't believe is important" nor "comprehensive list of minor characters in a fiction franchise whose powerful characterization, including the use of archetypes, has been extensively discussed in books and scholarly literature". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't affect the HP article but again, if someone created a list of characters that relied on primary sourcing, that would likely be deleted under notability concerns. Notability doesn't guide the content unless editors chose but still is essential on judging if the whole, or a good majority of the parts, are deemed WP:N-notable. Masem (t) 21:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If someone created a list of characters and cited primary sources, but better sources exist in the real world, then {{Primary sources}} should be added to the article and the list should not be deleted.

If someone created a list of characters and cited primary sources because no secondary source in the whole world ever wrote about those characters and it's not a {{navigation list}} (←mainly blue links, like a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page except organized by subject instead of by name), then the subject might be eligible for deletion.

However, it's also possible that the correct outcome is WP:MERGE. We don't want this:

• WP:SPLIT appropriate/encyclopedic content out of the main article per WP:TOOBIG.
• Hooray, it's a "List" now, and I only see reliable sources talking about 'this subject' and not about having 'a list about this subject', so I can take the split content to AFD and burn it with fire! Watch me defend Wikipedia against, um, accurate information that readers are looking for (>800,000 page views per year for List of Harry Potter characters; see WP:VIEWSSTATS for how that compares) so I can show everyone that Wikipedia is srious bidness.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Idk ~2025-34132-29 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It's describing what this page is about in a nutshell. Or, in other words, it's a tl;dr of the page's content. Nil🥝 21:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Recently user @Sugar Tax nominated a number of articles about local UK bus routes for nomination (examples , ,). Some have now been closed as no consensus (I've asked for reviews) and I'm assuming that the argument is that they have received WP:SIGCOV. The problem seems to me to be twofold: firstly, all the coverage as I see it is WP:ROTM: service is introduced, service is withdrawn, sometimes there is small scale opposition to the withdrawal. Secondly, if these were companies, they'd fail WP:CORPTRIV, and as most of the news sources are hyper-local (either newspaper websites for a town/small city or the local section of the BBC website), also WP:AUD, but because they're a service (sometimes operated by more than one company over the years) it seems these guidelines don't apply.

I can see circumstances where a bus route might be notable - I've got a book on my shelf entirely about a certain route which is also reported to be the location where George Harrison passed his audition for the Beatles, or if a route had some lasting impact on an area's fortunes, or introduced some new product or practice - but the sources in these articles simply show that these routes exist or existed. Do we need more specific guidelines or am I on the road to nowhere, pun intended? Orange sticker (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This sounds like a very similar problem we have with airline destinations or airport connecting cities, which are mostly frequently sourced to first party sources. They should fall undrr NCORP, as well as NOT concerns. Masem (t) 21:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've just found WP:BUSROUTE but it's only an essay. I would also argue that locals submitting a petition to save a bus route is very WP:DOGBITESMAN. Orange sticker (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

At pages like Teahouse and the AFC help desk, I regularly see people told "Interviews don't count towards notability; they are not independent". When and where did we decide this?

It seems to me that there is a vast difference between, at one end of the spectrum, the kind of churnalistic article that is simply a string of quotes from the subject, in a Q&A format (which certainly is not independent) and, at the other extreme, an in-depth profile of the kind published by more serious journalists and publications, which is made up of an in-depth analysis in the journalist's words, supplemented by quotes from the subject explaining their beliefs or motivations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There's WP:INTERVIEW, but from prior discussions there doesn't appear to be consensus on the question of whether interviews are independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are different types of interviews and that should be context dependent. In some interviews much "third party" or "independent" information is even in the questions themselves. Also, its silly to say in a serous outlet interview, that an independent party has not taken notice, obviously they have or there would be no interview. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that sometimes major publications interview people who otherwise aren't notable because they did a thing that the reporter finds interesting. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

An interview alone should not be able to confer notability, but if there are other appropriate sources that provide some significant coverage, and the interview (particularly based on the weight of importance and independence of the interviewing source) helps lend more weight to that, the interview should not be discounted from notability.

The problem that I think some are concerned about is that there are business trade magazines that one can pay to be interviewed, which makes the interview there non-independent. Masem (t) 14:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E should weed those out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Just one source does not do much of anything, but it does not follow from that, that you should exclude that source when looking over all the sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that the dividing line is utterly subjective. For my part, I'm quite comfortable with interviews not conferring notability; if a subject is genuinely notable, there will be significant coverage in third-party sources that aren't interviews. Ravenswing 14:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Many of our criteria for sources and notability are utterly subjective. We seem to manage.

Your latter point appears to be circular. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No more subjective than sigcov, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Most interviews that are worth anything start with at least an introduction, a bit about "GMG is big and strong and very handsome" before it goes into the transcript. That bit is presumably vetted for accuracy based on the reputability of the source. Also, again, based on the quality of the source, they presumably wouldn't let someone outright lie. Responsible journalism is supposed to entail keeping your subject within the realm of the real world.

This is different than low quality pieces, especially industry, where interviews are often treated as a way to produce content without much work, the subject can say whatever they want because it's just an avenue for advertising, and the bio itself may just be pulled from the subject's website. GMG^talk 17:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

In reality, the real answer must be it depends, as interviews lie on a spectrum (from a quote on a topic that the subject is familiar with to a piece where the subject themself is the topic). But the real challenge is that, correctly, we do not define how many sources (or type of sources) is sufficient to create a stand-alone article. We define notability as something "worthy of notice" (and that being worthy is receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources"). Importance is not a criteria. Because we have this fuzzy concept of notability, we run into this question of whether an interview "counts" only when the subject is of borderline notability (and in that case, perhaps it is better to err towards WP:NOPAGE). --Enos733 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

"we run into this question of whether an interview 'counts' only when ..."—But we don't. We make blanket statements such as that paraphrased in my OP, even when we don't know the intended subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that this nutshell edit by @Bearcat ("a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have") has added to the confusion. The situation is more complicated than just "Nope, non-notable".

One of the structural problems is that editors (especially us old hands) are more interested in plain old print. It needs to be text, and it needs to be something I can search with ⌘F. An interview transcript might get printed in a magazine, but back in the day, that was a novelty or a single column in a publication that was filled with everything else.

Interviews are the form used by default for radio, television, podcast, and video formats. If we say "Nope, a huge number of interviews is just not notable", we're saying that the format of the source determines whether it 'counts'. That's not what we want to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I, and I think many of the people I referred to in my OP, are thinking of print or website interviews, rather than audio-visual. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

What I mean Madonna is not notable because of an interview that she gave. There are plenty of GNG sources about her. The only time we have concerns about whether an interview should be considered for notability is when the subject is of borderline notability. - Enos733 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that disputes only arise in the more difficult cases. After all, editors are usually trying to find out "notable or not?", and when we can do that with sources that are easy to evaluate, then it'd be inefficient to spend time and energy evaluating and classifying the other sources.

However, in principle, a source should count the same regardless of whether there are other sources, and that matters for the policy writing aspect. I don't think that Madonna's most famous interview demonstrates notability (for her, or anything else), but that's because of the contents of the interview. I'd hold that view no matter what other sources did/didn't exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say the interview material does not count for notability, but in more reputable outlets they often give an extended 'introduction' to the interview background independent from the interview. If that is long enough, I would count it for notability, but not the interview part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, please look at the first row of the table below. Then consider:

• If the history professor writes a one-page article in a history journal about the battle, then that's evidence that the battle is notable.
• If the history professor writes a one-page article in a magazine about the battle, then that's evidence that the battle is notable.
• But if the history professor says the same things on a radio show, then that's not evidence that the battle is notable?

Whether a reputable publication is written or spoken should not make any difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like radio shows are a poor example because you cannot go back and fact check that like you can with writings. I wouldn't think that to be as reliable. With a documentary you get multiple takes and edits so that would be another thing. But the medium of radio does not really lend itself to fact checking, it is more off the cuff, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No, not really. You've raised three points, so I'll address them separately:

• Most radio shows (i.e., in the present century) are recorded and archived. The recordings can be used to check the contents for WP:V purposes. If it wasn't (or if the recording was kept private), then the source would fail our WP:Published#Accessible requirement, but that's unrelated to it being an interview.
• Not all radio shows are live broadcasts, and even for 100% live broadcasts, there are frequently semi-prepared bits. For example, if I were interviewing you live, I'd want to ask about your experience and comfort with this, and give you some idea of what to expect (for example, maybe I'd tell you: "I'll introduce you and say you're a Wikipedia editor. We'll start easy: I'll ask you about how you got started editing and whether you think Wikipedia is important to the world. After that, I'll ask about what Jimmy Wales said last week, and whether Elon Musk really hates Wikipedia, and we'll see where it goes from there. If we run out of things to talk about, I'll ask if you have a favorite story about Wikipedia, so come prepared to tell one if we need to. When you hear the background music start, we've got 30 seconds left."
• Fact-checking (i.e., by the source, not by Wikipedia editors, who have no business doing that) is a desirable thing in (most) sources, but it's not a requirement for notability, or even for reliability. Additionally, particularly with Gotcha journalism, fact-checking does sometimes happen in live radio and television interviews. Some interviews are a long series of "Do you deny that you ever said this?" "Yes! Of course I deny saying that!" "Here's a video of you saying this. Now, do you still deny that you ever said this?" But most fact checking is both more mundane (how to spell the interviewee's name) and unnecessary for recorded interviews (whether they actually said that thing).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've wondered occasionally whether some examples like this might help editors reach a shared understanding:

Examples of some interviews

Source	Interviewee	Topic of discussion	Notability?
10-minute segment on a radio show	A history professor from Little University	100th anniversary of a battle in the broadcast area	Y Yes for the battle – equal to a newspaper article saying the same thing in prose N Not for the radio show N Not for the professor
A Current Affair (Australian TV program)	John Hewson	Whether his tax proposal would make a birthday cake cost more or less	Y Yes for the tax proposal – equal to a newspaper article saying the same thing in prose N Not for the interview itself (the post-broadcast media coverage of the interview made the interview notable)
Late Show with David Letterman	Madonna	Madonna herself and her books	N Not for Madonna – all primary N Not for the interview itself
60 Minutes	Betty Ford	Ford herself	Y Yes for Ford – even though the interview was carefully selected to be sympathetic to her and Ford's goal was to promote herself N Not for the interview itself
The Rolling Stone Interview series	Various authors/creative people	The interviewees, their works, their views, etc.	Y Yes for the interviewees – Long interviews demonstrating a significant amount of attention to the subject and preparation by the interviewer
Man on the street interview	Random person	Usually current events or personal opinions	N Not for anything (no significant coverage)
Corporate newsletter	CEO	whatever the CEO wants to say about the company	N Not for anything (self-published, non-independent)
Business magazine	CEO	whatever the CEO wants to say about the company	N Not for anything (all primary)
		interviewer leads CEO through a comparison of that company's marketing strategy vs other companies' marketing	Y Yes for the company ? Maybe for the other companies (if SIGCOV) N Not for the CEO
		interviewer leads CEO through analysis of how the CEO's life experiences and management style shaped their career	Y Yes for the CEO – even if it's all positive or "softball" N Not for the company

Do you think that would help? (It could go in Wikipedia:Interviews.) Would you change anything? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not think the source column makes sense - as the topic of discussion is the most important aspect to determine what is notable. Certainly, there is a difference between an interview on 60 Minutes versus a segment on a radio show or quotes in a Wall Street Journal article, but for clarity to editors, the question needs to be why the person was interviewed. Was the person interviewed to talk about how they use AI, or about their company's marketing strategy, or was the person interviewed to talk about their life experiences? And secondly, what is the depth of the published interview (is the subject the feature of the published piece, an example, or an anecdote). - Enos733 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The WP:SOURCE (which includes both the publication/interviewer and the interviewee – the first two columns here) determines whether the interview could be a reliable source at all. "Teenager interviews friend for school project" is never going to demonstrate notability, nor is a reporter doing random man-on-the-street interviews.

I agree with you that the topic of discussion is the key point, because you could interview Alice Expert about Alice herself (notability points to the BLP on Alice) or you could interview Alice about her area of expertise (notability points to the area of expertise, but not to Alice herself). As a real-world example of that, tech analyst Rob Enderle was famous for getting quoted in tech news, largely because he was very quick to return calls from reporters who were working on short deadlines. The resulting articles demonstrated notability for whatever he was talking about, not for himself. (The reason we're stuck with an article on him is because the The Mercury News wrote a whole article about him, not because it'd be possible to fill pages with "On <date> he was quoted in the <publication> as saying that Apple might fail".)

I think the content itself is also relevant. For example, both Madonna and Betsy Ford were interviewed on television, but I think only the Ford interview could contribute towards notability. The Madonna interview didn't have any useful substance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

My point is largely that if we do add a table to WP:INTERVIEWS, we should try to hold the source column consistent, as editors are generally better about evaluating the general appropriateness of a source. But, if we have source "60 Minutes" and an topic of discussion a in-depth interview, I don't want a table to leave the impression that the quality of the source is the defining feature ("if it was in 60 Minutes it must contribute to notability"). Some of the segments in 60 Minutes that include a clip of an interview are more akin to interviewing a history professor (subject matter expert) and would not contribute to notability of the interviewee. - Enos733 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

As WP:NJOURNAL has been dismissed in toto as an essay, comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests § Quantitative Biology Paradoctor (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)