Wikipedia talk:Popularity does not guarantee notability

Guideline?

Shouldn't this be changed to a guideline? Nowadays when something that doesn;t meet WP:GNG is popular, an editor requestes it to be included. and the outcome is generally {{not done}}. This issue has been increasing, so we should make it a guideline. ~2026-29993-3 (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I have pulled the {{rfc}} tag for three reasons: (i) you do not show that there has been any prior discussion that has reached the point where a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is required, see WP:RFCBEFORE; (ii) there is no RfC category (see WP:RFCST before trying again); (iii) per WP:PROPOSAL a better place to discuss this would be WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The idea seems a bit abstract. Yes, on paper something may be popular and still not ne notable. But on practice, how often does that happen? Sources do not exist in the void, and when something becomes popular someone talks about it, because it sells. The intro mentions some topics that are both popular and notable, but can we get some examples of topics that are popular and not notable? Cambalachero (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)