Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:46, 27 May 2011

Welcome to the notability noticeboard
This page is for users seeking advice on notability and whether or not a topic meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for its own article. Sources showing notability, and whether they meet Misplaced Pages's general inclusion criteria, will be examined here. Some topics have specific topic guidelines, which are listed below under "Subject-specific guidelines". To show notability, you should list the key evidence of reputable journals, independently published books, reputable news and media sources, widely reputed measures of recognition, and other reliable independent published sources, which show significant attention being paid by those independent sources to the subject of the proposed article. These are crucial and must be available to support an article, as it is a measure of how much the wider unconnected world has shown significant and likely enduring attention. Sections older than 31 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:N/N
Quick introduction to common criteria General inclusion criteria Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and is selective. Material that isn't "encyclopedic" (not suitable for an encyclopedia) or is "indiscriminate" (non-selective/arbitrary material), may have a problem. Misplaced Pages considers enduring notability. Material that is routine may have a problem. Being "big in the news" or having many references doesn't change this (many things get attention for a brief period but are "just ordinary news"). Events and news material need to be quite significant to be covered. Articles on living people have especially strict rules because it's easy to do harm. Sources must be very high quality, people noted for one event usually get covered in an article on the event not an article on the person, and borderline cases are much more likely to be deleted (especially for minors or where the person is notable for negative reasons). However if they are genuinely agreed notable then the biography will be included and neutral regardless of whether positive or negative. Notability criteria and evidence The acid test is that people who genuinely are uninfluenced by and independent of the subject have decided that it is significant enough to write substantially about, and credible reliable publications feel it is of wide enough interest to write about it too. This could also mean that the subject was chosen over many alternatives or has gained unusually clear recognition such as a major award or position. That interest is what notability is actually trying to assess, not just the fact of coverage itself. Self promotion and routine coverage do not create notability. The test is coverage of a kind that shows actual wider interest by credible published sources, not paid placements, nor the kind of occasional, routine or local coverage that any business or person might get now and then, nor minor and little-recognized awards, nor mere search engine "hits", nor "hearsay" or anecdotal evidence. Notability can set quite a high bar. For example local politicians, most professors, most bands and websites, many schools, most crimes (including violent and widely reported crimes) and most matters in the news (even widely reported and circulated) are "just routine"—most politicians are not especially notable, nor are most schools or companies, most crimes or events. Likewise, minutiae and topics only relevant within a narrow-focus group or community with little or no wider notice or relevance are often not considered notable. Notability is not inherited. For example having famous relatives or clients or being the creator of a well-known item or an item that was created by a well-known entity does not confer notability. The subject of an article must be shown to be notable in its own right, not just due to "reflected light" from others. Subjects noted only for merely filling a role, where the role and not the subject was what really got 'noticed' (i.e. any person or entity that filled that role would have had the same coverage). In many cases the subject fills the role by pure chance or incidentally (bystander witnesses, selected spokesperson, interviewed participant, etc) and gets coverage in that role. Happening to be the occupier of that role won't of itself evidence the subject's notability. Note - some kinds of role may well show notice being taken of the person (CEO, cabinet secretary/minister, etc). Common "reasons" that don't count Articles exist because evidence shows the world at large deems the subject worthy of notice (as described), not just because it is interesting, useful, liked/disliked, some people may want to know about it, etc. The person who created it or their motive is not a deciding factor. Being badly written isn't a factor, we can fix poor writing if actual sources exist. (But actual lack of adequate sources would be a problem.)
Other common inquiries related to article viability For advice on whether the sources for an article are reliable, visit the Reliable sources noticeboard. For concerns regarding the stricter rules applying to articles about living people, visit the Biographies noticeboard. If you want to edit about yourself, or organizations, products, people, or matters having a close personal connection to you, or if you wish to engage in paid editing, you must read the Conflict of interest guideline, and you are urged to ask on this page whether the article is viable before creating it.
Additional notes: For possible non-notability, you should review and summarize the available sources, showing why you feel the criteria are not met. Detailed contents of articles and their quality of writing is not discussed here, and opinions expressed here do not guarantee an article will be kept on Misplaced Pages (ie, editor feedback and not a formal decision).
Click here to start a new discussion

Newspapers

Are there any more specific guidelines regarding Newspapers like the WP:BK is for books. The Mormon Worker has been tagged (not by me) as having questionable notability since June and I would like to resolve that issue, but I'm not sure what the guidelines regarding Newspapers themselves when they help establish notability for there subjects.

The Xtina Army

The Xtina Army is a major fan base for Christina Aguilera which was developed in April 2011. The fan base has since launched a website, a Facebook page, and has made an impact on the promotion of Christina Aguilera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Duncan (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not notable. Does not meet WP:GNG, zero mentions in reliable sources, news articles, books, or scholarly works. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How does an indie musician become documented on Misplaced Pages??

Who documents them independent musicians? Should their inner-circle take care of that? We, the fans? The press? Who? I see some on there but not some that I would've thought for sure would be on there.

TiKkO4 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• See the notability guidelines for musicians; the primary criterion for inclusion is the coverage of the musician in reliable third-party sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Silverbolt

I'm been working on improving the proof of notability of the fictional character named Silverbolt from the Transformers. Feedback is welcome. User:Mathewignash/Silverbolt Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcos Mateo page

This page - Marcos Mateo - raises on face the question of Misplaced Pages notability to me. I am new here so I am unfamiliar with the protocols, and whether I should be raising the matter somewhere else. If so, someone please so advise.

I have no dog in the fight. I merely stumbled on the page. Immediately I find myself questioning the amount of information dedicated to this ballplayer, who to date has pitched a sum total of 33 innings in Major League Baseball. (A "cup of coffee" in baseball parlance, a flea bite, nothing.)

I speculate that simply becoming a Major Leaguer meets Misplaced Pages's basic notability threshold; however, the amount of detail on this figure's minor league experience is completely disproportional to any other Major League baseball player's page I have visited. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, nobody - and certainly no-one so insignificant relative to the sport they participate in - has such extensive detail and cites on their minor league exploits. Having an utter dearth of Major League achievements is no warrant to substitute such a superabundance of minor league fodder.

How may this page be brought into balance? What is the mechanism? Questioning Notability does not seem the optimal course; it is, however, the first step that comes to me. What should be the next?

Thanks in advance for recommendations. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Subject of article passes WP:MLB/N, specifically criteria #2. Content regarding minor league career appears to be well cited, by reliable sources. However, one can argue that the amount of content falls under WP:UNDUE, and you can propose that it be whittled down and summarized and get consensus before doing so, or you can just be bold and do it without a discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Helen Wood

Helen Wood has been quoted in various news articles (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8449296/Helen-Wood-life-of-a-middle-class-prostitute.html, http://www.caughtoffside.com/2011/04/17/prostitute-helen-wood-admits-to-sex-with-four-premier-league-footballers/, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385132/Super-injunctions-Rooney-prostitute-Helen-Wood-married-actor-slept-with.html, http://100gf.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/helen-wood-the-prostitute-with-all-the-secrets/ etc) as having a number of high profile clients. Though she is referenced in at least one Wiki article there is no page for her herself.

I understand that Misplaced Pages should not include information which is not allowed in to the public domain, but there should be a page for her to link together the information that is admissible by the British court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrideleader (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Daily Sport Journal

Daily Sport journal,since 2006,is a one of Myanmar sport journal which is issue by every Monday.these journal makes up 6 editors and 5 DTP workers.
Editors Group

• *Thi Ha ( Chief Editor)
• Cartoon Okocha ( Senior Editor)
• Phyo Tar Zar Lwin ( Editor)
• Nay Lwin ( Stats Editor)
• Ye' Kyaw Thu ( News Editor)

Layout and design Group

• Myint Thu Ya(Designer)
• Zaw Myo Naing( Leader)
• Fat Tee(DTP)
• Kalar(Typing player) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okocha15 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Myriagonal number notable at all?

I see no references and google scholar results about it. On Chinese Misplaced Pages I saw it was mentioned in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, David Wells (Penguin Books, 1997), but I don't know if it was a 'significant coverage'.--Inspector (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. I think it needs attention from someone skilled in mathematics. I agree there is not much information on the subject on the web (I did a cursory search too); I wonder whether the WP article (or even the name -- should it be "myriagon number") is accurate. If a myriagon is a polygon with 10,000 sides, and a regular myriagon would be something like a circle essentially. Not sure it's used much in mathematics. Maybe we should stick a tag on it saying "needs attention from an expert".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No hits at Google Scholar or, more tellingly, at Zentralblatt MATH. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A sequence isn't interesting just because it's in a "dictionary of interesting numbers". Unless some cultural significance somewhere comes up, this should probably be deleted. Hans Adler 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability of a scientific topic that lacks non-blog publications

Editors with experience in assessing the notability of a scientific topic may wish to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Genetic Priming. The scientific topic Genetic Priming seems to have been mentioned mainly on a blog or two, and hasn't generated any peer-reviewed publications. Can it be notable? -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please offer opinions at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Genetic Priming. So far, besides the nominator, only the CoI page author and several of his non-Misplaced Pages friends have offered opinions. We really need additional experienced Wikipedians to figure out if this is merely a promotional page that should be deleted, or something more. Health Researcher (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BMW Car Club Great Britain & Ireland

I have created the following page in my user area: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dteagles/BMW_Car_Club_of_Great_Britain_%26_Ireland Could someone please check the notability/suitability of this page before I go any further. I have been unable to find any on-line references from major sources other than the fact that the club has a direct link on the BMW UK web page (referenced in the article: http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/owner/car_club/0,,___,00.html). There are other links to the club from magazines such as BMW Car, Total BMW and I am sure others.

BTW, I am a director of the club.

Thanks Dteagles (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well. First, being a director of the club, you really shouldn't be writing about it here in Misplaced Pages because of a possible perceived conflict of interest. But we appreciate you being bold. That said, references are a key, and you need inline (easily checked citations). Use a search string -- plug the whole thing in your browser along with terms you select perhaps in quotes such as "BMW car club" -- such as one for British papers here; that is the term "BMW car club" followed by the entire newspaper string goes into your browser (cut and paste -- CTRL C and CTRL V -- right?). Here are a few strings:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

British papers

(site:thesun.co.uk OR site:guardian.co.uk OR site:telegraph.co.uk OR site:independent.co.uk OR site:dailynewspaper.co.uk OR site:dailymail.co.uk OR site:thetimes.co.uk OR site:bbc.co.uk OR site:orange.co.uk OR site:bbc.co.uk/news/ OR site:belfasttelegraph.co.uk OR site:express.co.uk OR site:megastar.co.uk OR site:economist.com OR site:epolitix.com OR site:expatica.co.uk OR site:thisislondon.co.uk OR site:ft.com/home/uk OR site:itn.co.uk OR site:theliberal.co.uk OR site:mirror.co.uk)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Or Irish ones here:

(site:ireland.com OR site:theirishworld.com OR site:irishcentral.com OR site:examiner.ie OR site:independent.ie OR site:electricnews.net OR site:eircom.net OR site:businessworld.ie OR site:online.ie OR site:rte.ie/news OR site:dublinpeople.com OR site:donegalnews.com OR site:limerickleader.ie)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Or automobile related ones here:

(site:motortrend.com OR site:caranddriver.com OR site:automobilemag.com OR site:roadandtrack.com OR site:aaca.org OR site:autoweek.com)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Next, if you find suitable references, use the inline citation format. One is here: WP:Referencing for beginners with citation templates but there are other formats. If you need help, write something on my user page. Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yakir Yerushalayim

Is receiving the Yakir Yerushalayim award sufficient to pass WP:N? I see that most of the people on the list have entries (but OTE - so no proof from there). Opinions? Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're asking whether if somebody wins this award, then they are notable, therefore worthy of an article? I'm not sure what others think, but my guess would be that most of the people winning the award have already been notable for other reasons? If not -- that is, if a person's only claim to fame is this award, then I suppose it's a judgment call; usually WP likes multiple independent sources. And how prestigious is this award? If it was the Nobel Prize -- and the only thing a person did was win a Nobel Prize, then I'd think that the person was notable regardless of a lack of other awards or attention. Problem is, I don't know how important an award this prize is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you comment of "most of the people winning the award have already been notable for other reasons" is an astute one and in most cases true. The only problem may be WP:RS without the award. The city of Jerusalem maintains a web list of recipients along with the rational. that can serve as RS supporting the existing WP:N. As to how notable the prize is, I'm still searching. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Listed buildings

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wooburn Grange Country Club as to whether being a "listed building" (technically English "Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest") confers notability. The best reference I could find was at Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests/Archive_41/Archives/_23#British_Listed_Buildings which seems to suggest a consensus that Grade I ("of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important") or Grade II* ("particularly important buildings of more than special interest") should be deemed notable. Are there any clearer guidelines on this? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The {{notabilityguide}} template doesn't seem to contain any policy or guideline specifically on the subject, and nor does Category:Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, so I think that these buildings simply have to stand on their own merits under the GNG. (The whole question is more or less academic as far as the deletion discussion in question goes, since it has not been established that the country club was listed at all, never mind to I or II* standard.) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Television crews

Are these kinds of articles notable, for example, List of Sesame Street crew and Crew of The Shield? Seems to me they fall under the category of lists (WP:NLIST), which guideline I've always found difficult to apply. Even if the lists themselves are sufficiently notable, some of the contents are not, but I'd like to focus just on the crew list articles themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree that these articles are more like lists but I am not sure what the notability guidelines are. What is your sense about this? My off-the-cuff sense is to keep this content in since it's information that possibly (a few) folks might want if they're interested in these TV shows, and I don't see people getting worked up enough to challenge it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Houlding

I came across this page Deborah Houlding and wonder if it passes the notability test. No external sources or references are given. Person claims to have written a book and translated a few others, also runs a website. Looks like a classic case of self promotion, with 5 links at the end all pointing to her own website.

"MakeSense64 (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)"

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards