Misplaced Pages:Notability: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:12, 28 November 2006 view sourceCentrx (talk \| contribs)37,287 edits →What notability is not: Simplify section about subjectivity; collapse section (at least currently, this is the only one)← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:15, 28 November 2006 view source Centrx (talk \| contribs)37,287 edits If you still dispute this guideline, please explain in a new, short(!) comment on the talk page. If there are issues with these recent changes, please look at the diffs and be selective in reverting.Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{guideline\|]<br>]<br>]}}		{{guideline\|]<br>]<br>]}}
	{{Disputedpolicy}}
	{{IncGuide}}		{{IncGuide}}

Revision as of 19:15, 28 November 2006

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages ].
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.

]

Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
Academics Astronomical objects Books Events Films Geographic features Music Numbers Organizations and companies People Species Sports and athletes Web content
See also
Notability essays Guide to deletion Common deletion outcomes Why was my article deleted?
v t e

Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to remain on Misplaced Pages. Generally, a minimum standard for a topic to be notable is that it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

The guidelines in the table on the right have been created, or are under discussion, to set out more precisely what these additional criteria should be in certain areas.

Primary criterion

One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the guidelines, as well as Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not Template:Fn, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies.
The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable).Template:Fn
Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject.Template:Fn

Dealing with non-notable topics

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. The most appropriate route depends on how the subject fails to satisfy the criteria. The use of notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues on Misplaced Pages.

Merging

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though it may be found in reliable, non-directory sources, it is mentioned trivially rather than being a main subject of the published works. Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia that stands independent of the main subject. One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist.Template:Fn

Deletion

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are few or no reliable published sources independent of the subject. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via Proposed Deletion, Articles for Deletion, or (for articles about a non-notable person, group, band, company, club, or website that does not even assert the notability of the topic) Speedy Deletion.Template:Fn

Topics that are not the subject of any published works at all are simply unverifiable and must be deleted.

Rationale

In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that information about it will have been researched and checked through publication in multiple independent reliable sources.
In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that it will not be monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors.
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

Notability is not subjective

Notability criteria do not equate to "I have heard of it"/"I have never heard of it" or "I think this topic deserves attention"/"I do not think this topic is worthy of attention". These subjective evaluations are irrelevant to the notability of a topic regarding its inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Notability is not judged by Misplaced Pages editors directly. With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Misplaced Pages is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. As such, the primary notability criterion does allow Misplaced Pages editors to determine whether "the world" has judged a subject to be notable, but this is not a consideration of whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable.

Notes

Template:Fnb That is, "has been featured in several external sources" — "featured" and "several" corresponding to "non-trivial" and "multiple".
Template:Fnb Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the subject. (See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography for the verifiability 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 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.
Template:Fnb Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 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 Some examples:
- Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) recommends that individual articles on minor characters in a work of fiction be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." page.
- Misplaced Pages:Notability (schools) recommends that individual articles on schools where there are no non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located, or into articles on the school districts, education authorities, or other umbrella school organizations as appropriate.
- Non-prominent relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event.
- An article on a band that doesn't satisfy the Misplaced Pages:Notability (music) criteria, such as the garage band that John Kerry used to play in, is merged into John Kerry.
Template:Fnb Wikipedians have been known to frown on nominations that have been inadequately researched. For related issues see Misplaced Pages:Autobiography and Misplaced Pages:Independent sources.

Categories: