Wikipedia:Notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcut:
WP:N
WP:NN
WP:NOTE
The status of this policy or guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
Notability and
inclusion guidelines

Notability guidelines

Other

Active proposals

More... subject-specific
See also: Precedents,
Notability verification

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Many topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to appear in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic.

The guidelines in the table on the right have been created, or are under discussion, to set out more precisely some additional criteria in certain areas.

Contents

[edit] Primary criterion

One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

  • What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies.
  • The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable).2
  • Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject.3

[edit] Dealing with non-notable topics

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. The most appropriate route depends on how the subject fails to satisfy the criteria.

[edit] Merging

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though it may be found in reliable, non-directory sources, it is mentioned trivially rather than being a main subject of the published 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 that stands independent of the main subject.

One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist.4

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

[edit] Deletion

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are few or no reliable published sources independent of the subject. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via Proposed Deletion, Articles for Deletion, or (for articles about a non-notable person, group, band, company, club, or website that does not even assert the notability of the topic) Speedy Deletion.5

For related issues see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Independent sources.

Topics that cannot be substantiated in any published works at all are simply unverifiable and must be deleted.

[edit] Rationale

  • In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that information about it will have been researched and checked through publication in multiple independent reliable sources.
  • In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that it will not be monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

[edit] Notability is not subjective

Notability criteria do not equate to "I have heard of it"/"I have never heard of it" or "I think this topic deserves attention"/"I do not think this topic is worthy of attention". These subjective evaluations are irrelevant to the notability of a topic regarding its inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. As such, the primary notability criterion does allow Wikipedia editors to determine whether "the world" has judged a subject to be notable, but this is not a consideration of whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable.

[edit] Notability is not historically fluid

Once a subject or topic has achieved notability in a local or international context, such notability does not expire; for example, notability does not require the aid of modern media to continually report on or cover the subject or topic in question. If such were the case, many minor historical events or persons would be subject to removal from the encyclopedia. Current frequency of media coverage is not a judge to say something is non-notable, but can be used to establish notability at one point for valid inclusion.

[edit] See also

Essays related to notability:

Proposed policies/guidelines related to notability:

[edit] Notes

  • Note 1: That is, "has been featured in several external sources" — "featured" and "several" corresponding to "non-trivial" and "multiple".
  • Note 2: Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
  • Note 3: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06.) is plainly trivial.
  • Note 4: Some examples:
    • Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) recommends that individual articles on minor characters in a work of fiction be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." page.
    • Wikipedia:Notability (schools) recommends that individual articles on schools where there are no non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located, or into articles on the school districts, education authorities, or other umbrella school organizations as appropriate.
    • Non-prominent relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event.
    • An article on a band that doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria, such as the garage band that John Kerry used to play in, is merged into John Kerry.
  • Note 5: Wikipedians have been known to frown on nominations that have been inadequately researched.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/t/Wikipedia%7ENotability_fd5a.html"