General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
This page in a nutshell:
- Users seeking advice and opinions on notability and whether or not a topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for its own "stand-alone" Wikipedia article, can ask on this noticeboard.
- Detailed contents of articles and their quality of writing is not discussed here, and opinions here do not guarantee an article will be kept on Wikipedia (ie, editor feedback and not a formal decision).
Editors can post questions on this noticeboard to ask whether or not a subject is likely to be suitable to have its own article on Wikipedia. Users will assess and discuss the sources showing notability and whether it meets Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria. Some topics have specific topic guidelines; these are listed on the right.
Notability is based on evidence of 'significant coverage' in reliable independent published sources. It is a measure of how much the wider unconnected world has shown significant and likely enduring attention. Independently published sources are crucial and must be available to support an article. 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 sources, which show 'significant attention' being paid by independent sources to the actual subject of the proposed article. For possible non-notability you should review and summarize the available sources showing why you feel the criteria are not met.
For other common inquiries related to article viability, see the following noticeboards:
-
-
-
- If you want to edit about yourself, or organizations, products, people, or matters having a close personal connection, or do paid editing - you must read the Conflict of interest guideline and unless extremely experienced, you are urged to ask on this page whether the article is viable before creating the page.
Please link both the outside coverage and the Wikipedia article (if one exists) and explain any issues and the specific policy or guideline wording you feel it complies with or fails to meet. Thank you!
Common criteria and quick introduction to the decision
- General inclusion criteria
-
-
Wikipedia 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.
-
-
Wikipedia considers enduring notability. Material that is routine may have a problem. Being "big in the news" or 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 and independent of by the subject have decided it's significant enough to write substantially about, and credible reliable publication(s) feel it's of wide enough interest to publish on it. This could also mean it 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 most schools or companies, nor most crimes, nor most events. Likewise minutiae and topics only relevant within a narrow-focus group or community with little or no wider notice or relevance is 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 created by a well-known entity. Subjects of articles must be shown to be notable in their own right, not just due to "reflected light" of others.
-
-
Subjects noted only for merely filling a role, where the role and not the subject was what really got 'noticed' (ie 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.)
Add new requests at the bottom of this page (Direct link).
Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
Subject specific guidelines
See also
Archive v · e
Contents
Notability for a filmmaker?
The question is whether Ron Peck is notable enough to be written about? Ron Peck first came to public notice with NIGHTHAWKS (1978), a film which dramatised the double-life of a man who works as a dutiful schoolteacher by day and wanders the demi-world of gay bars and clubs by night, the two worlds finally colliding when his pupils discover he is gay. The film, an official entry at Cannes, was hailed as “a landmark film” by the Los Angeles Times and has just been reissued in 2009 in UK cinemas and on DVD by the British Film Institute. Prior to that, he made a number of documentaries and has returned to the expanded documentary essay form several times since, with EDWARD HOPPER, about the American painter, STRIP JACK NAKED, an experimental film about growing up in 70s and 80s London, and most notably the epic FIGHTERS, described as “the finest film ever made on professional boxing” (Sunday Times). With the features EMPIRE STATE and REAL MONEY, he explored the criminal world of East London, but in CROSS-CHANNEL he tells a story that moves out of England into France and the projects on which he is currently working, set in Russia and Ukraine, continue his interest in exploring a wider world beyond the borders of his own country. Fiercely independent, his films have often been seen as controversial - in subject-matter, attitude and style. He is known particularly for his work with young non-professionals, his improvisatory method and his uncompromising vision. There are a number of articles about him and his films in the internet. Here are a few: http://www.list.co.uk/article/17156-profile-ron-peck/ http://www.400blows.co.uk/inter_peck.shtml http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-04-15/ron-peck-rt-interview.html http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews16/nighthawks.htm www.bfi.org.uk/about/media/releases/20090409_nighthawks.pdf Mosep 12 Aug 2010
Cigarette brands
I tagged this section with the "cleanup-spam" template, as well as proposing the speedy deletion of some articles (using "db-g11") whose only purpose seems to be to make known the existence of certain brand names. I'm also troubled by the title "Selected Cigarette Brands", as it leads one to wonder who selected these brands, and why. In my opinion, the entries I tagged have no encyclopaedic content whatsoever. A certain admin removed the tags with very little explanation, so I'm bringing this issue here to glean some guidance on how to proceed.
I'm not some rabid anti-smoking activist (in fact, I am a smoker), and I appreciate that Mr. Goodman is no tobacco company shill, but we disagree on the interpretation of this guideline. Rather than getting into a pointless edit war/Wikipissing contest, I'll leave it to my fellow 'pedians to recommend a sensible course of action. I've put diffs, revisions, etc. on my talk page, so as not to clog up this page. All informed input is appreciated. Thanks. HuntClubJoe (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
-
Speedy deletion applies to whole pages, not merely text in a single section.
- A list of cigarette brands is probably a reasonable thing for Wikipedia to have. A reader interested in the marketing of tobacco, for example, might want to find information about many different brands.
- About how brands were chosen for the list, you could check the page's history. The advice on this page, although directed towards full-page lists, might be useful to you in figuring out how such lists should be formed. Usually, if the section says something like "Selected X" or "Representative X", then the editors are trying to signal "Please don't spam absolutely every possible X on to this page!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
