Wikipedia:No special considerations

Among the many things Wikipedia is not, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What is or is not included on Wikipedia is determined by factors collectively and colloquially called the "criteria for inclusion," namely notability and the above-linked "What Wikipedia is not", as well as plain community consensus as to whether something does or does not deserve an article.

"Notability" is a word that often trips up those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes, because in the colloquial usage "notability" is synonymous with concepts like "importance" and "significance." As a result, many would-be article creators, when faced with the notion that their article is "not notable enough for inclusion," will often resort to arguments grounded in the idea that the article's subject is in some way uniquely significant to history, to society, to their subculture, to their nation, and so on. No matter how much other, more experienced editors try to explain otherwise, many of these editors simply cannot be dissuaded from arguing the idea that their article subject's unique, subjective significance (or even simply its popularity) renders it notable enough for inclusion, and that we would be doing the encyclopedia a disservice (or even committing a great societal ill) if we did not publish the article.

Aside from certain narrow exceptions where subject-specific notability guidelines allow 'presumed notability' (e.g., WP:NACTOR c1, WP:NPROF c2), notability (and therefore suitability for inclusion) is based not on what a person has actually done, but what others have written about them; see the golden rule.

There are no special considerations or extenuating circumstances which allow an article subject to be assessed according to some bespoke criteria outside of the normal criteria for inclusion. If the article subject does not meet the notability criteria (whether subject-specific or general), the article will not be published. If the article subject contravenes what Wikipedia is not, the article will not be published.

Without exception, no argument based on the idea that these standards should not apply to a particular article subject due to its unique significance to any person or group of people will be considered.

Specific examples

• "This person/organisation/event is historically significant." - If indeed so, then there ought to be ample written sources to substantiate notability.

• "This person/organisation/event is extremely important to my culture/ethnicity/race/nation." - Wikipedia is not intended to be an ethnographical or anthropological resource. Subjects which are significant to a particular social group should be preserved and documented, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so unless it otherwise meets our requirements.

• n.b., this argument and counter-argument also applies in cases where an editor argues that Wikipedia should disregard WP:COMMONNAME and instead refer to a particular figure using a more respectful, honorific or titular name. See also MOS:HONORIFIC. Note for example the history and FAQ of Talk:Shivaji.

• "This person/organisation is embroiled in an important controversy, and your refusal to publish this article is evidence that Wikipedia['s admins] are biased/corrupt/paid off/involved in the conspiracy." - Wikipedia is neither a platform for advocacy nor a place to publicise somebody's position nor a means to right a great societal wrong.

See also

• Wikipedia:Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs - Wikipedia's admins, AfC reviewers and experienced editors know a thing or two about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and arguing that they don't know what they're talking about isn't going to exempt an article from those criteria either.
• Wikipedia:Popularity does not guarantee notability - What it says.