This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline. Shortcut WP:VNOTWP:VNOT While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all...
Click to read more »sections, especially WP:BURDEN (=the person adding has to source it) and WP:VNOT (=it's not enough to source it). In 2005, the claim The burden of evidence...
Click to read more »of Foot. These huge lists are undue and swamp those articles. Also see WP:VNOT. Dormskirk (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Delete. I'm happy to scratch...
Click to read more »article. Note: This started off as the status quo version but I reversed the VnotT sentence which seemed to make more sense syntactically, and I tried out...
Click to read more »of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. There's also WP:VNOT: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all...
Click to read more »that RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Support per WP:VNOT and WP:DUE, as other editors have pointed out. A social media post or other...
Click to read more »focused on MT and NH, fixated with infobox cleanup and uniformity, and WP:VNOT compliance. Jcgaylor (talk) – Assessing articles; GA and SC focused; creating...
Click to read more »Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability"...
Click to read more »focused on MT and NH, fixated with infobox cleanup and uniformity, and WP:VNOT compliance. Jcgaylor (talk) – Assessing articles; GA and SC focused; creating...
Click to read more »research is being funded by the U.S. government. To be honest I find WP:VNOT to be very vague so I'm not sure how it applies here. ChaseK (talk) 18:25...
Click to read more »even misleading picture of a candidate's political support. Nor does WP:VNOT establish an independent-source requirement. It says that verifiability does...
Click to read more »content" is not a policy-based reason to restore content; the purpose of WP:VNOT is precisely this. Your interpretation makes it much easier for POV-pushers...
Click to read more »important is that this noticeboard won't settle your question for inclusion. WP:VNOT. -- Colin°Talk 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Umm… I can’t get that point from...
Click to read more »meaningful or trivial. The issue WP:VNOT and WP:DUE - not WP:RS. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC) VNOT is not a license to exclude content...
Click to read more »per talk. No consensus this section is WP:DUE. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNOT Restored content after being removed by Newimpartial Restored content again...
Click to read more »problem. The complex problem is of course editors who don't understand WP:VNOT and who care not for your nuance about article type and who have in all the...
Click to read more »be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC) WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this...
Click to read more »focused on MT and NH, fixated with infobox cleanup and uniformity, and WP:VNOT compliance. Jcgaylor (talk) – Assessing articles; GA and SC focused; creating...
Click to read more »focused on MT and NH, fixated with infobox cleanup and uniformity, and WP:VNOT compliance. Jcgaylor (talk) – Assessing articles; GA and SC focused; creating...
Click to read more »my lone edit to the article was as an administrative action based on WP:VNOT, the arbitration committee's longstanding resolution in this area, and the...
Click to read more »in an article, especially through the lens of other policies such as WP:VNOT. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects says "An article should...
Click to read more »subject would pass in SIGCOV, since the sources make inclusion unclear WP:VNOT. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Noted with thanks. I...
Click to read more »thinks about...and then gets published in a tiny number of sources, per WP:VNOT. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »be verifiable does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion (WP:VNOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE). For example, evidence that the article's subject...
Click to read more »It's related to the subject of the article, it is relevant lol" See WP:VNOT. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It is still trivia that has...
Click to read more »editor DigitalExpat (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) We should bear WP:VNOT in mind: the fact that information is well cited does not guarantee its inclusion...
Click to read more »encyclopaedic relevance, and by implication can be excluded per WP:NOT and WP:VNOT. What this proposal does is give guidance on the criteria where the former...
Click to read more »their arguments on inherently ambious and less well-known policies like WP:VNOT, WP:NOT, and WP:10YT. (I'll note that WP:RECENTISM is sadly not policy)....
Click to read more »have your opinion and I have mine. WP:VNOT also applies here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) VNOT isn’t a rebuttal to WP:DUE; since no one...
Click to read more »know they're wrong, we can just omit the specific wrong claim. Also, WP:VNOT clearly applies: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; there's tons...
Click to read more »notable, does not place any obligation on us to publish an article: see WP:VNOT for the policy authority for this. It follows that passing the GNG is not...
Click to read more »listicles. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC) If you're referring to WP:VNOT, that's a link to the policy page, and if you're referring to WP:IPCV, look...
Click to read more »able to verify the information does not mean you should include it (see WP:VNOT. I know that children of politicians in post-Soviet countries are widely...
Click to read more »whether this topic would merit a stand-alone article as per WP:NOPAGE, WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS: just because something is reported or verifiable does not...
Click to read more »helpful. jamacfarlane (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC) It depends. See WP:VNOT / WP:ONUS; verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so we can choose to...
Click to read more »that have published those viewpoints. Inclusion is determined by WP:NOT, WP:VNOT & ONUS. I'm pretty sure DONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to exclude information...
Click to read more »the same-named issue or topic. Andrevan@ 02:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC) From WP:VNOT: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all...
Click to read more »notable, does not place any obligation on us to publish an article: see WP:VNOT for the policy authority for this. It follows that passing the GNG is not...
Click to read more »recent edit on the page and you referenced in the subsequent edit (about WP:VNOT) what is stated there is immediately verifiable and requires no trust, and...
Click to read more »06:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC) This is against the plain text of both WP:VNOT and WP:BLP which says that a consensus is required for inclusion. ~2026-32437-2...
Click to read more »guidelines at WP:TOOBIG that apply to any article on Wikipedia, let alone GAs. WP:VNOT is also a good thing to keep in mind. This is a biographical article about...
Click to read more »just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it should be included, WP:VNOT. What should or shouldn't be included in an article is a WP:NPOV matter,...
Click to read more »'keep' responses are not engaging with WP:PAGEDECIDE. I would also raise WP:VNOT although that hasn't been brought up explicitly. The sourcing in the article...
Click to read more »(talk) 11:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Just want to remind everyone to read WP:VNOT. It may be relevant here. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Do...
Click to read more »inclusion, the content shouldn't be restored before a consensus is found (WP:VNOT for all articles, WP:BLPRESTORE additionally here). You have not "stopped"...
Click to read more »(talk) 18:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC) I think WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOT are as close as you'll get. They all have plenty of room for disagreement...
Click to read more »because something can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it must be included (WP:VNOT). He can be reliable, as bias doesn't effect reliability, and yet not due...
Click to read more »policy? I'd think that with over 90,000 edits you'd be well aware that WP:VNOT/WP:ONUS dictates that if editors raise a concern that policies may indicate...
Click to read more »about what to include and reliability doesn't guarantee inclusion (see WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC) The objection...
Click to read more »subject", just because it can be sourced doesn't mean it must be included (WP:VNOT). If more or better source can't be found that would be a good arguement...
Click to read more »guidelines at WP:TOOBIG that apply to any article on Wikipedia, let alone GAs. WP:VNOT is also a good thing to keep in mind. This is a biographical article about...
Click to read more »they struggle with certain community norms (WP:OVERCITE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:VNOT, WP:BLUDGEON). They have had limited success in aligning their behavior with...
Click to read more »counter to the goal” are already handled by other exclusion policies (not WP:VNOT). Inclusion of material that does not counter to the goal will make Wikipedia...
Click to read more »mention WP:DUE. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Yup… see: WP:VNOT. There are several other policies and guidelines that indicate that this...
Click to read more »Whether something is an RS or not is irrelevant because WP:V (specifically WP:VNOT and WP:ONUS) state that material is not guaranteed inclusion just because...
Click to read more »these routes are verifiable or not. I don’t think they are encyclopedic. Per VNOT I would omit them. Hence my !vote suggestion to split the info - listing...
Click to read more »of Foot. These huge lists are undue and swamp those articles. Also see WP:VNOT. Dormskirk (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Delete. I'm happy to scratch...
Click to read more »information to present and what information not to present. This is why WP:VNOT exists, because Wikipedia cannot contain every piece of information. An article...
Click to read more »is balanced by several other policy statements - especially WP:DUE and WP:VNOT. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC) I think this excerpt from W:EXPERTSPS...
Click to read more »is reliable, but over if including the information follows WP:BALASP. WP:VNOT is relevant here: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in...
Click to read more »should not be included in an article is a matter of NPOV not reliability (WP:VNOT). For third opinion about the weight or inclusion of content you want WP:NPOVN...
Click to read more »WP:ONUS seems relevant to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC) WP:VNOT and WP:ONUS used to be one section but was split, leading to some confusion...
Click to read more »research is being funded by the U.S. government. To be honest I find WP:VNOT to be very vague so I'm not sure how it applies here. ChaseK (talk) 18:25...
Click to read more »say they wouldn't be reliable, but reliability doesn't mean inclusion (WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC) If we're...
Click to read more »September 2025 (UTC) This is an issue of WP:DUE (also WP:MINORASPECT and WP:VNOT), not of reliability. End of discussion. Not everything credibly reported...
Click to read more »policies determining whether stuff should actually be in articles, including WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) For example:...
Click to read more »included content - reliable sourcing doesn't mean it has to be included (WP:VNOT). Is his quote due for inclusion, that would rely on whether any secondary...
Click to read more »included content must have, but by itself it's not an inclusion criteria (WP:VNOT). Inclusion depends on context. One I reverted out was an individual who...
Click to read more »source (which is not even required). Applicable policies are WP:BURDEN and WP:VNOT. Regarding the notification, don't worry. I have fixed the heading syntax...
Click to read more »sourced and what should be included in an article are not the same, see WP:VNOT. What should be included in an article is a matter of WP:Neutral Point Of...
Click to read more »something can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it must be in an article, see WP:VNOT. What's included in an article depends on what all sources say about a specific...
Click to read more »having been archived, with no relevant follow ups at the moment); As per WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, the fact that something is verifiable does not mean that...
Click to read more »Elli (talk | contribs) 01:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC) That is not correct. WP:VNOT means that verifiable information does not have to be included on Wikipedia...
Click to read more »listicles. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC) If you're referring to WP:VNOT, that's a link to the policy page, and if you're referring to WP:IPCV, look...
Click to read more »Just to be clear… if this goes to an RFC, focus the discussion more on WP:VNOT than on WP:RS Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC) @Dcpoliticaljunkie:...
Click to read more »whether this topic would merit a stand-alone article as per WP:NOPAGE, WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS: just because something is reported or verifiable does not...
Click to read more »editor DigitalExpat (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) We should bear WP:VNOT in mind: the fact that information is well cited does not guarantee its inclusion...
Click to read more »NotQualified (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) And what if it isn't. WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, even were it to be considered reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c)...
Click to read more »his full/middle name is not interesting for a WP-article. WP:V includes WP:VNOT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC) Interesting doesn't...
Click to read more »(talk) 12:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) I could throw around more letters like WP:VNOT. You do so quite a bit. You need to study BLP protections more generally...
Click to read more »_not_truth Belladonna2024 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Please review WP:VNOT and reconsider your last sentence. You must have consensus through discussion...
Click to read more »EFFORT, HARMLESS, and that the lists are well-referenced (rebutted by WP:VNOT). Several people added that the RfC was six years ago and had limited participation...
Click to read more »firearm was used for the mass shooting of the week. Also consider WP:IINFO, WP:VNOT and WP:ONUS. Taken together, unless there's significant RS coverage of these...
Click to read more »thinks about...and then gets published in a tiny number of sources, per WP:VNOT. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC) WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this...
Click to read more »of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. There's also WP:VNOT: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all...
Click to read more »It's related to the subject of the article, it is relevant lol" See WP:VNOT. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It is still trivia that has...
Click to read more »'keep' responses are not engaging with WP:PAGEDECIDE. I would also raise WP:VNOT although that hasn't been brought up explicitly. The sourcing in the article...
Click to read more »that something was covered by WP:RS isn't an argument for inclusion (WP:VNOT). Diff 3.4 is also true: JFD, for all his good intentions, is inexperienced...
Click to read more »can and should be reported in an article. This view ignores WP:NOTNEWS, WP:VNOT and the caveats to WP:NEWSORG. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »subject would pass in SIGCOV, since the sources make inclusion unclear WP:VNOT. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 23:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Noted with thanks. I...
Click to read more »considered to be of encyclopaedic interest, which de facto puts us into WP:VNOT, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and minor aspects territory. the requirement of being...
Click to read more »discuss it and seek consensus for why it should be included. Also see WP:VNOT Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC) And I've never stated...
Click to read more »quote about Charlie Kirk, and I removed the quote under the guise of WP:VNOT, WP:NOTE, and WP:REL (and it was just a quote without any relation to the...
Click to read more »different scenario. That is one reason why I eventually split ONUS and “VNOT” into two distinct sections. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Oppose...
Click to read more »to freeze an article; Oh its a V failure ... Oh, I see the source, well VNOT, and it is not DUE ... Well I see it's widely cited but it still is not NPOV...
Click to read more »to freeze an article; Oh its a V failure ... Oh, I see the source, well VNOT, and it is not DUE ... Well I see it's widely cited but it still is not NPOV...
Click to read more »something that all content requires, but it doesn't guarantee inclusion (see WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC) His...
Click to read more »consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.) and WP:VNOT (While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all...
Click to read more »anything about it.Psephguru (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC) No. The WP:VNOT policy states: Template:Tq2 Otherwise, we'd be stuck with WP:COATRACKs. —Bagumba...
Click to read more »taken as bludgeoning too!). Pob3qu3 (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Per WP:VNOT, the simple fact that a source exists for something doesn't necessarily guarantee...
Click to read more »they believe that they violate WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:VNOT, WP:QUOTE or other content usage rules. The appropriate place to express...
Click to read more »were necessary to demonstrate that the content should be included per WP:VNOT/WP:BALASP/WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)...
Click to read more »consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (WP:VNOT). You should also read up on what WP:Vandalism is, it has a specific definition...
Click to read more »mention the alleged YouTube channel cannot be cited due to WP:REDFLAG, WP:VNOT, as well as the the lack of coverage by mainstream news sources, government...
Click to read more »particular, a hallucination of policy language that does not actually exist in WP:VNOT). Einsof (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC) The error in the ISBNs must...
Click to read more »2026 (UTC) What we need is experienced editors to turn discussions to WP:VNOT WP:DUE, WP:NOT, pertinent WP:RS, and WP:LEAD -- explain those and how they...
Click to read more »neutral source, 84 tanks are to be lost. Please tick that. Or this claim WP:VNOT is against. We have a group on social media where we meet and talk about...
Click to read more »EFFORT, HARMLESS, and that the lists are well-referenced (rebutted by WP:VNOT). Several people added that the RfC was six years ago and had limited participation...
Click to read more »2026 (UTC) In diff 5, I see Longewal citing WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNOT. But the filer's complaint here "removes sourced content". How does "sourced...
Click to read more »their reasoning has either been a) a source mentions it (I've pointed out WP:VNOT, and that sources regularly mention many trivial details that are not all...
Click to read more »