Wikipedia:Notability

"WP:N" redirects here. For other uses, seeWP:N (disambiguation).

"WP:NOTE" redirects here. For other uses, seeWP:NOTE (disambiguation).

On Wikipedia,notabilityis a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

Information on Wikipedia must beverifiable;if noreliable,independentsources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoidindiscriminate inclusionof topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does notnecessarilydepend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic ispresumedto merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
2. It is not excluded under theWhat Wikipedia is notpolicy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion tomergeor group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable atopicis forits own article or list.Theydo notlimit thecontentof an article or list, though notability iscommonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists(for examplefor listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content,seeNeutral point of view,Verifiability,No original research,What Wikipedia is not,andBiographies of living persons.

General notability guideline

A topic ispresumedto be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has receivedsignificant coverageinreliable sourcesthat areindependentof the subject.

• "Presumed"means that significant coverage inreliable sourcescreates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violateswhat Wikipedia is not,particularly the rule thatWikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
• "Significant coverage"addresses the topic directly and in detail, so thatno original researchis needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • The book-length history ofIBMbyRobert Sobelis plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
  • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article aboutBill Clinton,that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band calledThree Blind Mice"is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• "Reliable"means that sources need editorial integrity to allowverifiableevaluation of notability, perthe reliable source guideline.Sources may encompasspublishedworks in all forms and media, andin any language.Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources"should besecondary sources,as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.Sources donothave to beavailable onlineorwritten in English.Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject"excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

For a full list of subject-specific notability guidelines, seeCategory:Wikipedia notability guidelines.

In some topic areas, subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The currently accepted subject guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and atCategory:Wikipedia notability guidelines.Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas offilms,biographies,andpoliticians,provide topic-related guidance when articles should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for ourliterature guidelinesand the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG fororganizations and companies.Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG foracademics and professorsand the SNG forgeographic featuresoperate according to principles that differ from the GNG.

SomeWikiProjectshave provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated asessaysand do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as atWikipedia:Articles for deletion).

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to thecontentsof articles. It also does not apply to thecontentsofstand-alone lists,unless editors agree to use notability as part of thelist selection criteria.Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something isnoteworthyenough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle ofdue weight,balance,and othercontent policies.For additional information about list articles, seeNotability of listsandList selection criteria.

Article content does not determine notability

Notability is a property of asubjectand not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia,no amount of improvementto the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if thesource material exists,even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Notability requires verifiable evidence

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must beverifiable,objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mereshort-term interest,nor a result ofpromotional activity or indiscriminate publicity,nor is the topic unsuitable forany other reason.Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sourcesexist in the real world;it does not require their immediate presence orcitationin an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, beforeproposingornominatingan article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in adeletion discussion,editors are strongly encouraged to attempt tofind sourcesfor the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

Wikipedia articles arenot a final draft,and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

The current state of the article does not determine notability

Current state of the article	Sourcesavailable in the real world	Result
No or few suitable sources cited	NNo or few suitable sources that could be cited	NLikely not notable
Multiple suitable sources cited	YMultiple suitable sources that could be cited	YLikely notable
No or few suitable sources cited	YMultiple suitable sources that could be cited	YLikely notable

Notability is not temporary

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via adeletion discussion,or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.

Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time

See also:Wikipedia:Notability § Events,andWP:BLP1E

Wikipedia is alagging indicator of notability.Just as alagging economic indicatorindicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described bynotability of events.New organizations and future events might passWP:GNG,but lack sufficient coverage to satisfyWP:NOTNEWSPAPER,and these must still also satisfyWP:NOTPROMOTION.

If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual,we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

Whether to create standalone pages

Further information:Wikipedia:Summary style,Wikipedia:Content forking,Wikipedia:Article size,andWikipedia:Merging

For the guideline on red-linked articles in hatnotes, seeWP:NOARTICLE.

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personallikesordislikes.Wikipedia is adigital encyclopedia,and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.

• Does other information provide needed context?Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign § Other initiativesandMitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign § International trip,for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as withPresident of the United Statesas well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly considerdue and undue weight.Fringe theories,for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
• Do related topics provide needed context?Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as atMusic of theFinal Fantasy VIIseries). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as withCategory:Restaurants in New York City).
• What sourcing is available now?Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating apermanent stub.On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essaysWikipedia:Every snowflake is uniqueandWikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see alsoWikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcomingSummer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, theWikiProject Filmstrongly recommends thata standalone article for a new film be createdonly if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on.

Subject-specific notability guidelinesandWikiProject advice pagesmay provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can bespun offfrom a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages,redirection pagesanddisambiguationcan be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see alsoWikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

Why we have these requirements

Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.

• We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or adefinitionof that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead bemergedinto an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (Seethe advice below.)
• We require the existence of"reliable sources"so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or postingindiscriminate collections of information.
• We require that all articles rely primarily on"third-party" or "independent sources"so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies withWikipedia's neutral point of view policyand to ensure that articles arenot advertisinga product, service, or organization. SeeWikipedia:Autobiographyfor discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources.
• We require the existence of at least onesecondary sourceso that the article can comply withWikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
• We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies withWikipedia:Neutral point of view,rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement.
• We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles norarticles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed.Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, seeWP:FAILN.)

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under thegeneral notability criteria.They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. alldisambiguationpages andsome lists).

Common circumstances

Self-promotion and publicity

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability.Wikipedia is not a promotional medium.Self-promotion,autobiography,product placement,press releases,branding campaigns,advertisements,andpaid materialare not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. 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 worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—withoutincentive,promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Independent sources are also needed to guarantee aneutral articlecan be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.

Events

Main page:Wikipedia:Notability (events)

Wikipedia is not a news source:it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, andtabloid journalismis not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia projectWikinewsmay cover topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could ariseeitherbecause the entity itself was notable,orbecause the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.

Stand-alone lists

Further information:Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria;andWikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative

See also:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists § Adding individual items to a list

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs" ) is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussedas a group or setby independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for astand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because thegroup or setis notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion,choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable itemsor those with Wikipedia articles.

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y" ) or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, althoughnon-encyclopedic cross-categorizationsare touched upon inWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory.Lists that fulfillrecognized informational, navigation, or development purposesoften are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

Fringe topics

This section is an excerpt fromWikipedia:Fringe theories.[edit]

In Wikipedia parlance, the termfringe theoryis used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views ormainstream viewsin its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representationin proportion to their prominence,a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must bebaseduponindependentreliable sources.If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,andreliable sourcesmust be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

There are numerous reasons for these requirements. Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects, and it is not a forum fororiginal research.For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in aneutral manner,it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independentsecondary sourcesof reasonable reliability and quality.

The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policiesNeutral point of view,No original research,andVerifiability.Jointly these say that articles should not contain anynovel analysis or synthesis,that materiallikely to be challengedneeds areliable source,and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.

Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of severalarbitration cases.SeeWikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are oftenmergedinto those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted.

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 subjectfor advice on where to look for sources.
• Place a{{notability}}tag on the article to alert other editors.
• If the article is about a specialized field, use the{{expert-subject}}tag with a specificWikiProjectto attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access toreliable sourcesnot available online.

If appropriate sourcescannot be foundafter a good-faith search for them, considermergingthe article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.Otherwise, if deleting:

• If the article meets ourcriteria 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 seven days if nobody objects. For more information, seeWikipedia:Proposed deletion.
• For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for thearticles for deletionprocess, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.

For articles on subjects that areclearlynot notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community topreserve any useful material.As deletion of an article are often heavily contested, editors are advised to thoroughlyfollow several recommended steps prior to nomination.

See also

• An extensive set ofsubject-specific guideline pagesfor different aspects of notability can be found atCategory:Wikipedia notability guidelines,with subject specific essays and proposed guidelines atCategory:Wikipedia notability.
• Wikipedia's article onNotability in the English Wikipedia.
• For commentary and discussion of this guideline, seeWikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/NotabilityandCategory:Wikipedia essays about notability.
• Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent,an essay on the difference between first-person, first-party, and primary sources.
• Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources
• Wikipedia:Viability of lists
• Wikipedia:Search engine test[cf.Google (verb)?]
• Wikipedia:Recentism
• Wikipedia:Relevance of content
• Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining
• No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
• {{assess table}}and{{source assess}},two templates used to present an assessment of the sources present in an article
• MOS:NOTE:Manual of Style on "Instructional and presumptuous language"