Wikipedia:Notability: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

m

Line 11:

The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely determine the encyclopedic suitability of a subject.

Notability guidelines pertain to ''article topics'' but [[#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content|do not directly limit ''content'' within articles]].

== The primary notability criterion ==

Line 22 ⟶ 24:

The subject-specific notability guidelines expand on these descriptions and include subject-specific details and interpretations. Some may also provide alternative criteria that a topic may pass in lieu of meeting this common criterion, though their spirit is still to ensure than an encyclopedic article may be written about the topic.

== Dealing with non-notable topics ==

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: [[Wikipedia:Merge|merging]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. The most appropriate route depends on how the topic fails to satisfy the criteria, mainly how it fails to satisfy the primary criterion. Articles that may be non-notable can be marked with the {{tl|notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem.

=== Merging ===

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though it may be found in published works that are not simple directories and that are from sources that are independent of the subject, it is mentioned trivially rather than being an in-depth subject of the works. Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject.

Line 32 ⟶ 34:

:''For related issues, see [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight]], [[Wikipedia:Content forking]], and [[Wikipedia:Summary style]].''

=== Deletion ===

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.{{fn|5}} Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion processes]].{{fn|6}}

Line 41 ⟶ 43:

For an indication on what is likely to be kept or deleted in a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|deletion debate]], please see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes|Common outcomes of deletion debates]]. Note however that outcomes of prior deletion debates do not supersede the primary notability criterion or the ancillary notability guidelines listed in the box above.

== Rationale for requiring a level of notability ==

* In order to have an [[Wikipedia:Attribution|attributable]] article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]].

* In order to have a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral]] article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|exclusively partisan or fanatic editors]].

* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not]] an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]].

== Notability is not subjective ==

Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.

General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]] published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|expertise]] have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

== Notability is generally permanent ==

<div class="messagebox disputed metadata">

{|style="width:100%;background:beige" class="messagebox-beige"

Line 62 ⟶ 64:

Other factors that may influence the notability of topics in the context of Wikipedia include the fact that [[Wikipedia:How to create policy|policy and guidelines]] and [[Wikipedia:Consensus can change|consensus]] can change over time.

== Notability is not popularity ==

Popularity does not ''ipso facto'' render a subject notable, nor does lack of popularity render it non-notable. For example, popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable, but a rather obscure seventeenth-century poet may have substantial coverage in reliable histories qualifying it as notable. Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability.

== Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content ==

==See also==▼

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable ''article topics'' within Wikipedia, not for allowable ''content'' within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and [[WP:TRIV|trivia]]. Note also, though, that other Wikipedia guidelines refer in places to "notability", meaning notability as defined by the notability guidelines.

▲== See also ==

Essays related to notability: