| Revision as of 16:42, 21 May 2007 view sourceDugwiki (talk | contribs)15,235 edits →Notability requires objective evidence: modified subject heading to reflect that this includes the "doesn't expire" notion from the original version of the guideline← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:28, 21 May 2007 view source Dhaluza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,557 edits →Notability requires objective evidence and does not generally expire: Move paragraph to talk page.Next edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| == Notability requires objective evidence and does not generally expire == | == Notability requires objective evidence and does not generally expire == | ||
| Given the inherently subjective nature of the concept of notability, the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be some verifiable and objective evidence to support the claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such evidence, as do peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. | Given the inherently subjective nature of the concept of notability, the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be some verifiable and objective evidence to support the claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such evidence, as do peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. | ||
| Although coverage in multiple sources creates a presumption of notability, some topics may have such coverage yet still be of purely temporary or local interest. For example, some news stories may be better suited for ], and certain local events may be of too narrow an interest despite some media coverage. | |||
| If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on ] that the subject may be notable in the future. | If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on ] that the subject may be notable in the future. | ||
Revision as of 23:28, 21 May 2007
- WP:NOTE redirects here. You may also be looking for WP:CITE, WP:NOT or Misplaced Pages:Footnotes
 | This page documents an English Misplaced Pages WP:N. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. | Shortcut |
 | This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. |
 | This page is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this page, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first. |
| Notability |
|---|
| General notability guideline |
| Subject-specific guidelines |
| See also |
Within Misplaced Pages, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". A subject is presumed to be notable if it meets the sources test below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.
These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.
General notability
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other.
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.Template:Fn
- "Sources" should be independent. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.Template:Fn
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.Template:Fn
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.Template:Fn
- "Independent of each other" means intellectually independent sources based on independent research. Template:Fn
Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article.
Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
- Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
- Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
- If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
If appropriate sources cannot be found:
- If possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context
- If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
- Use the {{prod}} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion.
- For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.
Notability requires objective evidence and does not generally expire
Given the inherently subjective nature of the concept of notability, the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be some verifiable and objective evidence to support the claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such evidence, as do peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.
If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.
Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. List articles, though, should include only notable entries; for example, only notable writers should be in List of English writers.
See also
Essays related to notability:
- Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - An essay arguing against the use of subjective criteria such as "I like it" and "I don't like it"
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes - Summary of common outcomes from AfD discussions giving context to precedents.
- Misplaced Pages:Independent sources - An essay explaining further why independent sources are needed to write an encyclopedia article.
- Misplaced Pages:Notability/Arguments - A list of arguments for both application and non-application of notability.
Notes
- Template:Fnb 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.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)) is plainly trivial. - Template:Fnb including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
- Template:Fnb Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. (See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography for the attribution and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Misplaced Pages:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
- Template:Fnb e.g. 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.
- Template:Fnb 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.
- Template:Fnb In other words, the only discussion of the topic is in published works from sources that are not independent of the subject, such as autobiographies.
- Template:Fnb Wikipedians 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 infomation which would demonstrate notablility in an other manner.