This is an essay about systemic bias at articles for deletion.

Notability is vague

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are purposefully and necessarily vague.

These guidelines are purposefully vague because applying them in practice demands a certain flexibility and brevity. They are necessarily vague because the concept of notability itself is not clear.

But vague guidelines make it easy for systemic bias to creep in. It is easier to dismiss a person as insignificant if they seem marginal. It is easier to dismiss coverage as insignificant if it comes from sources that seem marginal.[a]

Deletion is consequential

Deletion is one of the most visible and consequential manifestations of systemic bias. When an article on a marginalized subject is deleted because it seems insufficiently "significant" or "important" to participants in the deletion discussion, this sends a powerful message:

Considerations

Here is a non-exhaustive list of considerations to keep in mind when evaluating subjects for notability that may be particularly susceptible to systemic bias.

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (September 2020)

See also

Notes

  1. ^ If Wikipedia worked perfectly, according to its own guidelines, it would perfectly reproduce the bias that already exists in media and scholarship.