Misplaced Pages:Notability: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 12:59, 26 November 2008 view sourceMasem (talk \| contribs)Administrators187,836 edits Reverted good faith edits by Pixelface; Revert - NOT becuase I disagree or agree, but this is not in line with WP:BRD. Get clear consensus to change on talk first.. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:21, 11 December 2008 view source Afc caitlin13 (talk \| contribs)2 edits ←Replaced content with 'Caitlin Lousie Brennan..Born 17th of June 1997.'Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Caitlin Lousie Brennan..Born 17th of June 1997.
	{{Redirect8\|WP:NOTE\|WP:NN}}
	{{Distinguish\|WP:CITE\|WP:FOOT\|WP:NOT\|WP:Not Now}}
	<br/>
	{{subcat guideline\|notability guideline\|Notability\|WP:N\|WP:NN\|WP:NOTE}}
	{{nutshell\|If a topic has received significant coverage in ] ] that are ] of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.}}
	{{IncGuide}}

	Within Misplaced Pages, '''notability''' is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Misplaced Pages article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively ] with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

	These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of '''topics''' for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: ], ], ], ], and ].

	== General notability guideline ==
	{{shortcut\|WP:GNG}}
	If a '''topic''' has received significant coverage in ] that are ] of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

	* ''"Significant coverage"'' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and ] is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.<ref>Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on ] are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band ''Three Blind Mice'' in a biography of ] ({{cite news\|title=Tough love child of Kennedy\|author=Martin Walker\|date=]\|work=]\|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html}}) is plainly trivial.</ref>
	* ''"Reliable"'' means sources need editorial integrity to allow ] evaluation of notability, per ]. Sources may encompass ] works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.<ref>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. 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. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Misplaced Pages, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a ] can be written — self-promotion is ''not'' neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see ] and ] for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even ''non''-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still ''not'' evidence of notability as they do not measure the ''attention a subject has received by the world at large''.</ref>
	* ''"Sources,"''<ref>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.</ref> defined on Misplaced Pages as ], provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.<ref>Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.</ref>
	* ''"Independent of the subject"'' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, ] material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.<ref>Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: ] for handling of such situations.</ref>
	* ''"Presumed"'' means that substantive coverage ] establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate ].<ref>Moreover, not all coverage in ] constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as ].</ref>

	A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

	== <span id="OBJ" /> Notability requires objective evidence ==
	{{Shortcut\|WP:N#OBJ\|WP:NOBJ}}
	The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

	]: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project ] covers topics of present news coverage.

	==Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines==
	Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

	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 or an expert on the subject<ref>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[REDACTED] project related to the topic, and ask for help there.</ref> for advice on where to look for sources.
	*Put the {{tl\|notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
	*If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{tl\|expert-subject\|PROJECT-NAME}} tag with a specific ] to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to ] not available online.

	If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider ] the article's content into a broader article providing context.<ref>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.</ref> Otherwise, if deleting:<ref>Misplaced Pages 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.</ref>
	*If the article meets our ], one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
	*Use the {{tl\|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 ].
	*For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the ] process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for five days.

	== <span id="TEMP" />Notability is not temporary ==
	{{Shortcut\|WP:N#TEMP\|WP:NTEMP}}
	If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on ] that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

	== <span id="NCONTENT" />Notability of article content ==
	{{Shortcut\|WP:NNC\|WP:N#NCONTENT}}

	The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Misplaced Pages. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content.

	But the term "notability" is still used in the sense of "importance" to describe the level of detail that is appropriate for an encyclopedic summary. Treat each aspect with a ] appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, ] of all possible details.<ref>See ]</ref> For example, the ] states that lists of people are not meant to be exhaustive.<ref>See ]</ref>

	Article content is also governed by various ].

	== See also ==
	Essays related to notability:
	* ] - An essay on notability within Misplaced Pages.
	* ] - An essay arguing against the use of subjective criteria.
	* ] - Summary of common outcomes from AfD discussions.
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] - An essay arguing why independent sources are needed.
	* ] - A list of arguments for both application and non-application of notability.
	* ] - A dissenting view to notability arguments.
	* ] - An essay arguing that certain topics have inherent notability.
	* ] A 2003 discussion on the use of "unencyclopedic" as a term.
	Other resources:
	* ] as a review of your understanding of this article, and as part of a ].

	== Notes ==
	{{Reflist\|2}}


	<!-- essays and the like should go in the category below, which serves as a general list of 'related issues' -->
	{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}

	]
	]
	]

	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

Revision as of 08:21, 11 December 2008

Caitlin Lousie Brennan..Born 17th of June 1997.