User:Aditya Kabir/Notability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One notability criterion shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is that:
- "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."
- "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.1
- "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.2
- "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
- "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.3
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
- "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.4
Contents |
[edit] Rationale for requiring a level of notability
- In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
- In order to have a 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 exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
[edit] Burden of evidence
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]
Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2]
- Further information: User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up
[edit] What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable?
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand:
- Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses;
- Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets;
- Books written by widely published authors;
- Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets;
Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.
In case of biographies of living persons Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. [3] Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject. These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page. Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
- It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
- It is relevant to the person's notability;
- It is not contentious;
- It is not unduly self-serving;
- There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.
[edit] Workflow to check notability
| AfDs based on notability
Debates on AfD lack guidance and become very hard to establish consensus
Every article is to be judged on its own merit, not in comparison to other articles
Clear notability guidelines can make AFD processes more easy to work through, and can simultaneously improve the article in question. The AFD process should center around the presentation and discussion of EVIDENCE:
|
| — Based on the musings of User:Jersyko |
This workflow has been proposed by B. Wolterding on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability on 19 November 2007. Though this never got through as an official guideline, I think, it still makes a wonderful personal checklist in dealing with notability issues. So here's the list of questions to follow, top to bottom, until one of the criteria fits.
Is it blatant advertising? Advertisement is easily identified by its grandiloquent tone: "Westside Lawyers is the pre-eminent community legal centre in South Australia." Surprisingly, a number of these articles stay in Wikipedia unnoticed for months. Some even undergo the usual editing process: Someone corrects the spelling, someone else improves the typesetting, again someone else adds a warning tag... Still the articles stay adverts, unless they have been rewritten considerably.
Has notability been established in the meantime? Sometimes an editor has reacted to the notability warning, e.g. added references to the article, but forgot to remove the notability tag. Sometimes the talk page contains relevant arguments, or a reference to a prior AfD discussion where the article was considered to be notable. Also check the edit history.
- If notability is established by now, remove the notability tag.[4]
In other cases, there were arguments in favor of notability, but these are not sufficient; for example, sources were added, but too few or of the wrong kind.
If an editor tried to establish notability, but did not succeed, remove the date from the notability tag.[5]
Is there an obvious merge option? This applies in particular to short articles. Sometimes these have an obvious "parent" article: "Church Street, Liverpool" can be merged into "Liverpool".
- If the article is short, be bold and merge it.
You may introduce a new section in the target article; leave it to others to clean up. Post a note on the talk page of the target article. If the article is longer, propose a merger.[6]
Is it marked with the "importance" tag? The "importance" tag asks editors to describe why the article is important. More often than not, these articles actually do not establish notability, or do not even assert it.
- If notability is not established by independent sources, replace the "importance" tag with "notability", removing the date.[7]
- If notability is undoubtably established, remove the "importance" tag and replace it with others.[8]
Is it notable? This is the stage where to consider the guidelines and policies in detail. Check whether the article is notable by WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, or others as applicable. In general, these say that the article must not only assert notability, but also establish it through independent reliable sources.
- If you find that the article is notable, remove the notability tag.[9]
- In some cases, you might be able to establish notability on your own.[10]
If you proceeded to here, send it to the wastebin. The subject might still be notable, who knows? But obviously no one is willing to establish notability for the article. Check the edit history and the talk page once again. Verify that the "notability" warning has been on for an extended time. Be sure what criteria the article should have fulfilled.
- For short articles, or longer ones which are obviously non-notable, propose them for deletion.[11]
- If the article is longer, and you are expecting controversy, send the article to the AfD process.[12]
[edit] Notes
- Note 1: It is generally preferable to have multiple sources, however, one substantial source can demonstrate notability. In this case extreme care should be given to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible.
- Note 2: including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
- Note 3: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
- Note 4: Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works should be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the attributability 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.
[edit] See also
[edit] See more
|
|
|
[edit] References
- ^ See Help:Editing#Basic text formatting: "Invisible comments to editors only appear while editing the page. If you wish to make comments to the public, you should usually go on the talk page."
- ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
- ^ Jimmy Wales about "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" [1] [2] [3] [4]
- ^ You may consider adding other tags as needed, such as {{unreferenced}}, {{cleanup}} or similar, or {{expand}}.
- ^ This will move the article to the start of our queue again, giving the author more time to improve the article. Be sure to add a comment to the talk page, stating your concerns, and mentioning that the article might be deleted if it is not improved. This comment will also prevent "endless loops" in the process.
- ^ Keep the article on your watchlist. Leave the notability tag intact until the merger has been performed.
- ^ This does not really solve the problem, but moves the article to the start of the queue. Since the notability template contains a reference to "possible deletion", editors might now give attention to the article. If not, it will reappear later.
- ^ If the article is notable, it might just be lacking a good introduction that shows why the subject is important in its context. Consider adding {{context}}, {{cleanup}}, or {{expand}} as needed.
- ^ Add other tags as needed. Leave a short note on the talk page, stating why the subject is notable.
- ^ You might e.g. ask the Google oracle in order to find sources; but interpret the results with care. You might have a look at "what links here" and at the foreign language versions, if any. But it is not required that you carry on looking for sources indefinitely. You are not a subject-matter expert, in general, and the experts have had their time to clear things up.
- ^ Add the {{subst:prod-nn}} tag. In the edit summary, use: "Proposed for deletion - lacks notability, see talk page. Sorted as part of the [[WP:WPNN|Notability Wikiproject]]." Leave an explanation (one or two sentences) on the article's talk page, citing the applicable guidelines, and mentioning that it had been tagged for an extended time.
- ^ The rationale behind this is that very short articles, which have not been given attention for a long time, can probably be deleted uncontroversially. In any case, keep the article or the AfD discussion on your watchlist.
[edit] Some templates for inaccurate and/or POV articles
{{Unbalanced|article}} {{Disputed|article}} {{OR|article}} {{unreferenced|article|date=August 2006}} {{totallydisputed}} {{POV-section}} {{unreferenced|date=November 2006}} {{accuracy-section}} {{bias}} {{Template:NPOV language}}
| WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks This project creates new articles and improves neglected ones.
|
|
 |
|
