User:Esquivalience/Notability rewrite

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Only notable topics should be the subject of articles and lists. Notability on Wikipedia is based on non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, not a subjective scale of fame, importance, or significance.

On Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, articles and lists must be created discriminately. A topic must be notable in order for it to be included on Wikipedia.

Notability is established not by a subjective scale of fame, importance, or significance. It is established by receiving coverage (basically being noticed) from other reliable, third-party sources. Basically, topics must have received notice from others in order to prove that it is worthy of notice on Wikipedia. Fame, importance, or significance does play a role, however, as it can act as a strong reason against an article's immediate deletion.

Wikipedia must also be verifiable and neutral. If, for a topic, there are no reliable sources to write from, then the topic should not have a standalone article, because sources are needed to meet content guidelines. The requirement of reliable coverage ensures that a verifiable and neutral article can be created. Sourcing allows articles to present information verifiably and provides evidence of existing viewpoints on a topic.

A topic is notable if it either meets the general notability guideline or any subject-specific guidelines (see box on the right) as outlined below. Notability only creates a presumption, not a guarantee, of the inclusion of a topic.

A topic that meets the notability guideline may still not merit inclusion, as another policy may prohibit the topic from having a standalone aritcle, particularly What Wikipedia is not.
Notability does not prevent an article or list from being merged or redirected. Editors may still use their own discretion to conduct a merger or redirect or attempt to gain consensus for it.

The notability of a topic only affects its suitability, except sometimes in lists, including lists in articles, which may only include notable topics; it depends on the nature of the list.

The general notability guideline

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, it is presumed suitable for a standalone article or list.

In a nutshell

Significant coverage Only sources that actually cover the topic count for significant coverage. In other words, it must say something about the topic, not just mention it.

A whole article or paragraph that describes the topic is significant coverage. A short mention is not.

Reliable sources A reliable source has a good reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It cannot be unpublished or self-published. Newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals are all common reliable sources. Blogs, social networks, and discussion boards are not.

We need multiple reliable sources, not just one. Several sources are preferred.

Independent Independent sources are written by independent authors, not ones affiliated with the subject. Any topic or author can write an article on themselves, but independent, reputable authors only write on a topic because they deem it noteworthy or important to cover.

Presumed Sometimes, even notable topics are best covered as part of a broader article or even left uncovered. If a topic is better covered as part of another article, then it should be merged instead. If another policy, particularly What Wikipedia is not, prevents the topic from being covered, then it should be deleted.

Significant coverage

Significant coverage is coverage that covers the topic directly and in detail. The content should be extractable without original research. Trivial mentions do not contribute to a topic's notability. The source material should cover the topic with more than such a mention, but it does not need to be the source's main topic.^[1]

There are three factors that can affect the significance of coverage, in order of importance:^[2]

The depth of coverage: The depth of the coverage is the most important factor to consider. The deeper a source's coverage on the topic is, the more the source contributes to notability. Deep coverage provides editors with more information to write an article with and provides stronger evidence of notability. Short mentions are not deep enough.
The prominence of coverage: The prominence of the coverage is another factor to consider. Are readers of the source likely to read the corresponding coverage first or last? The placement,^[3], size, and juxtaposition^[4] of coverage affect its prominence. For example, coverage in the main body of the source is stronger evidence of notability than coverage in a footnote.
The scope of coverage: Sources may cover the topic as the main topic or a secondary topic. Sources that cover the topic as the main topic serve as stronger evidence of notability than if it covers the topic as secondary.^[5] Additionally, as more topics are covered other than the topic in question in a source, the weaker the source contributes to notability.^[4]

Reliable sources

Reliable sources^[6] are published sources that have a good reputation for editorial integrity, factchecking, and accuracy, as defined by the verifiability policy and the reliable source guideline. For the purposes of notability, usually only secondary sources should be considered,^[7] as they most objectively indicate notability, and articles must be based on secondary sources. Sources do not have to be free to access, available online, or in English.

The number of reliable sources needed depends on the depth, placement, context, and quality of coverage, but multiple,^[8] preferably several, sources are usually expected.^[9] There should be enough sourcing to write beyond a short stub.

Coverage by sources of regional, national, or international scope are preferred over sources of local scope because they provide stronger evidence of notability; however, local sources can still establish notability even if they compose all of the topic's coverage, but more are needed in such a case. Events with only local and short-term coverage are usually not notable, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Not all coverage, even non-trivial, in reliable sources contribute to notability, as sources should be discriminate and deep enough. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Multiple sources on the topic by the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of notability, although the depth of the multiple sources combined should be considered.

If there are not enough reliable sources to establish notability, it may be helpful to cover the topic in a broader article.

Independent of the subject

Works that have been written by the subject, someone affiliated with it, or some paid to write on the subject should not be considered, even if a reliable source publishes such a work. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the notice a subject has received.

Promotional activity

Sometimes, the subject may pay persons or organizations, even ones whose publications are considered reliable, for promotion. Such coverage should never be considered when assessing notability.

Presumed

Even if the topic is notable through this guideline, it is only presumed, not guaranteed, inclusion. Notability does not prevent an article from being merged, redirected, or even deleted, because another policy or guideline may not permit a standalone article on the topic, or it is better to cover the topic in a broader article.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

There are specific guidelines for various subjects, as listed below or on the sidebar at the top-right. If a topic meets the criteria of its subject-specific guideline, it is also notable. Editors are nonetheless still encouraged to find sources for the topic, as all articles must be verifiable.^[10] Subject-specific guidelines may also provide advice on how to handle articles within their scope, and may also add additional provisions to the general guideline.^[11]

List of the subject-specific guidelines

For people, living or deceased, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).
For organizations (a group formed for a purpose), including schools; or companies, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
For music (including albums, singles, and recordings), musicians, and ensembles, see Wikipedia:Notability (music).
For films, see Wikipedia:Notability (films).
For places, regions, and other geographical features, see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).
For events, see Wikipedia:Notability (events).
For professors and academics, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics).
For athletes and sports organizations (including leagues), see Wikipedia:Notability (sports).
For websites and web content, see Wikipedia:Notability (web).
For books, see Wikipedia:Notability (books).
For astronomical objects, see Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects).
For numbers, see Wikipedia:Notability (numbers).

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article

The notability guidelines deal with the inclusion of topics; not the inclusion of actual content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content; except that some lists only include notable items or people. Articles or lists include or exclude content based on the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about standalone lists, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.

Article content does not determine notability

Notability can only be established by the existence of sources on the topic. No amount of editing or improvement can add to or subtract from a topic's notability.

Notability requires verifiable evidence

Evidence is required to prove an article's notability. You can prove a topic's notability by linking to or citing sources in the article, a deletion discussion or the talk page. Just asserting that sources exist without evidence is unpersuasive, except when the topic is likely notable.

No topic is notable just because it exists. There must be evidence of the topic meeting the notability guideline, and that the coverage was not a result of promotional activity.

Notability is based on the existence of sources

The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable, as the content of the article does not affect a topic's notability. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, when assessing a topic's notability, editors are strongly encouraged to search for sources, ask significant contributors to the article on the topic (if they exist) for sources, and/or directly ask the subject.

Likelihood of notability

Some topics are likely notable (usually substantiated by a topic's fame, importance, or significance)^[12] or likely to have sources offline, even if no sources can be found on such a topic.^[13] For such topics, immediate deletion due to lack of notability is usually inappropriate.^[14] However, if time passes, multiple searches have been conducted, and actual proof does not surface; merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive.

Notability is not temporary

Notability is not temporary. Once a topic meets the general notability guideline, it does not need further coverage.

This does not prevent editors from challenging a topic's notability. Articles or lists may be considered for deletion if the editor believes that previous assessment(s) of notability were not accurate.

In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person remains and is likely to remain a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on him or her. Events with only short-term coverage should not be included, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Why we have these requirements

Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)
We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.
We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement.
We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (i.e., all disambiguation pages and some lists).

Why we rely on outside sources

Notability is subjective. Some may consider a high school basketball team notable because of local interest. Some may only consider highly significant topics notable.

While subjectivity can be safely ignored as multiple opinions can balance each other out, relying on outside sources is better as they represent notice from the outside, while Wikipedians represent notice from the community.

Authors of reliable sources cover topics because they are noteworthy; or otherwise famous, important, or significant to their intended audience. While this is subjective, if multiple authors deem a topic noteworthy, they represent multiple audiences, which reduces subjectivity.

Whether to create standalone pages

When creating new content on a notable topic, editors should have the reader in mind. Sometimes, readers understand a topic best on a dedicated standalone page, but there are other times where they understand it best as part of a broader article.

Covering a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. The decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal opinion.

Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic is understood better as part of a larger article, where more complete context that would be lost on a separate page exists.^[15] Other times, standalone pages are understood the best.^[16] One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages, but have undue weight on a page on the mainstream concept.
Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them notable, can be covered on a single page, where the relationship between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page.^[17] Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because such an article would be too unwieldy. In that case, creating a new list or category for the broader topic, linking to the individual articles, and summarizing the topics within it is the best option.^[18]
What can be written on the topic? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should consider the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. Alone, an article being a stub is not enough of a reason to merge or redirect. It may be possible to expand a stub than merged into a larger page.
- Events: Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future highly-notable event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens.^[19]

Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may help in making these decisions. Note that when a standalone articles can be spun off from a broader page; for notable topics that do not have standalone articles, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

Common circumstances

Events

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine or local news reports on an event for them to be notable. Even a large burst of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event cannot be considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. In some cases, coverage of a controversial topic (such as a book) could arise either because the topic itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event: both need consideration.

Stand-alone lists

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been covered 'as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Every topic in a list does not have to be covered, only that the grouping or set in general has been. If the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to only include entries for notable items.

There is no present consensus for notability of complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the inclusion of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the group itself before creating stand-alone lists. If in doubt about a list's suitability for inclusion, attempt to gain consensus first.

What to do with articles or lists on non-notable topics

Articles or lists on non-notable topics are not retained as standalone articles; they are usually deleted. Editors should still consider alternatives to deletion. Such articles may be merged and redirected (fully or in part) if there is some coverage and a suitable article.^[20] Additionally, editors can just redirect if they are not suitable for merger, but are suitable for redirection.

If an article does not demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing sources, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject^[21] for sources or advice on how to find them.
Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to inform other editors on possible non-notable topics.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract experts of that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Deletion only due to the lack of demonstrated notability in the article is inappropriate, because notability is based on the existence of sources.

If you have already attempted to search for sources and can't find any, then consider merging by discussing a merge on the talk page. Else, nominate the topic for deletion:

Such articles commonly meet A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which applies to articles on a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not assert its significance. If the criterion applies, tag the article with {{db-a7}}. Additionally, consider if any other criterionapplies.
Use the {{prod}} tag for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but likely won't cause controversy if deleted. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. If a few sources do exist, then it may be controversial; if it applies, consider nominating it at articles for deletion (see below). For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article or list^[22] for deletion at the articles for deletion process, where the merits of the topic will be discussed for 7 days to a month.^[23]

Notes

^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.
^ Depth is the primary factor. Except in borderline cases, the other two factors can be safely discounted.
^ Use common sense; if the source does not indicate that the placement of a topic matters, such as a source where component topics are sorted in alphabetical order, then discount the placement of the topic's coverage.
^ ^a ^b If other topics are covered more prominently, the weaker the source contribute to the topic's notability.
^ For example, a news article detailing intoxicated driving may cover organizations that combat such driving. The topic of intoxicated driving is the main topic, the organizations are secondary topics.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals.
^ Primary sources can still be an evidence of notice. For example, reliable sources that interview subjects usually interview discriminately.
^ Two or more. If the sourcing available is high-quality and the coverage is above-than-average in significance, two is likely enough; otherwise, several are expected.
^ Lack of sourcing suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story at similar times, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ If after multiple searches for sources, information beyond a short stub cannot be written about the subject, editors should consider the advantages and disadvantages of have a permanent stub, and consider covering the topic in a broader article.
^ For example, additional factors must be considered for events.
^ For example, a person or organization that has verifiably won many awards (or a few major awards) is probably likely notable.
^ Some topics or topic areas are not covered in sources that are immediately available without payment, purchase, or possession; or on the Internet; such as many historical events.
^ Articles can be deleted instead of kept in this circumstance; however, a subject likely to be notable is also likely to be of reader interest, and readers/editors may be bold and add sources that prove the topic's notability.
^ Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example)
^ as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President.
^ as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series
^ (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City)
^ Such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).
^ For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.
^ Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a Wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help there.
^ Lists are also discussed at Articles for deletion.
^ Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

[2] Depth is the primary factor. Except in borderline cases, the other two factors can be safely discounted.

[3] Use common sense; if the source does not indicate that the placement of a topic matters, such as a source where component topics are sorted in alphabetical order, then discount the placement of the topic's coverage.

[prominence-4] If other topics are covered more prominently, the weaker the source contribute to the topic's notability.

[5] For example, a news article detailing intoxicated driving may cover organizations that combat such driving. The topic of intoxicated driving is the main topic, the organizations are secondary topics.

[6] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals.

[7] Primary sources can still be an evidence of notice. For example, reliable sources that interview subjects usually interview discriminately.

[8] Two or more. If the sourcing available is high-quality and the coverage is above-than-average in significance, two is likely enough; otherwise, several are expected.

[9] Lack of sourcing suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story at similar times, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[10] If after multiple searches for sources, information beyond a short stub cannot be written about the subject, editors should consider the advantages and disadvantages of have a permanent stub, and consider covering the topic in a broader article.

[11] For example, additional factors must be considered for events.

[12] For example, a person or organization that has verifiably won many awards (or a few major awards) is probably likely notable.

[13] Some topics or topic areas are not covered in sources that are immediately available without payment, purchase, or possession; or on the Internet; such as many historical events.

[14] Articles can be deleted instead of kept in this circumstance; however, a subject likely to be notable is also likely to be of reader interest, and readers/editors may be bold and add sources that prove the topic's notability.

[15] Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example)

[16] s with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President.

[17] s at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series

[18] (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City)

[19] Such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).

[20] For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.

[21] Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a Wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help there.

[22] Lists are also discussed at Articles for deletion.

[23] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]