| Revision as of 18:50, 10 December 2024 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,434 editsm Jclemens moved page Misplaced Pages:Wired rule to Misplaced Pages:Sentinel Notability← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:06, 10 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,434 edits Expand, generalize. | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{notability essay}} | {{notability essay}} | ||
| While ] requires {{tq|significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject}}, a quick approximation of notability can be seen by finding a single unquestionably good source. A version of this was first articulated in 2011 as "The Wired rule", but logically similar arguments have been brought up in multiple different contexts: | |||
| * An obituary in '']'' suggests a recently deceased individual was notable. | |||
| * A song or artist being covered in '']'' magazine suggests notability. | |||
| One source does not satisfy notability, but it may indicate it: one article or page thoroughly covering a subject in a major, widely-respected publication or website is a good indication that other coverage exists for that subject. | |||
| This will vary from time to time as publications and websites rise or fall in popularity, circulation, and reach. In 2024, "the Wired rule" is substantially less true than it was in 2011. | |||
| Thus, if an editor says "Coverage in X means it's notable!" in a deletion discussion, they should be understand to be implicitly referencing the probable ] of other sources that will satisfy notability, even if they are not currently referenced in the article or discussion, rather than an objection to the concept of notability or a rejection of the ]'s expectations. | |||
| == The '']'' rule == | == The '']'' rule == | ||
Latest revision as of 19:06, 10 December 2024
Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
While notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
, a quick approximation of notability can be seen by finding a single unquestionably good source. A version of this was first articulated in 2011 as "The Wired rule", but logically similar arguments have been brought up in multiple different contexts:
- An obituary in The New York Times suggests a recently deceased individual was notable.
- A song or artist being covered in Rolling Stone magazine suggests notability.
One source does not satisfy notability, but it may indicate it: one article or page thoroughly covering a subject in a major, widely-respected publication or website is a good indication that other coverage exists for that subject.
This will vary from time to time as publications and websites rise or fall in popularity, circulation, and reach. In 2024, "the Wired rule" is substantially less true than it was in 2011.
Thus, if an editor says "Coverage in X means it's notable!" in a deletion discussion, they should be understand to be implicitly referencing the probable existence of other sources that will satisfy notability, even if they are not currently referenced in the article or discussion, rather than an objection to the concept of notability or a rejection of the general notability guide's expectations.
The Wired rule
"Anything covered in detail in Wired magazine brought to Articles for Deletion will be found to have enough reliable sources to be judged notable by Misplaced Pages standards."
- JClemens, 2011
Category: