User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable

This is an essay on the Wikipedia:GNG and associated policies and guidelines.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Introduction

Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline is the centerpiece of Wikipedia's criteria for determining whether there is enough quality coverage of a topic to warrant inclusion of that topic in our encyclopedia. Notability is distinguished from synonyms such as well known or famous in that notability merely requires the existence of sufficient neutral, arm's-length, high-quality material on a subject that we can even have a hope of writing a neutral and verifiable article on it.

This essay, which is still in development, is an attempt to help people new to the enormous "ifs, ands and buts" of this policy navigate the question of whether a topic is notable, with a particular emphasis on common errors.

The guideline appears simple, it states. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". However, nearly every word there has unseen implications and connotations, and even the explanation of it into seven paragraphs at WP:GNG breaks it down into other words which appear to have a common English meaning, but in fact which are applied in a very technical sense.

So, let's put that aside. Let's see how to actually make the determination yourself.

How to tell if a subject is notable

Make a list of sources.^[a]
For each source, ask yourself all of the questions in the next section. If, for a given source, the answer to *every single question* is pass, then you can put a checkmark by that source. If the answer to even one question is "fail", but an "x" by it.
After you've done this for every source, if you have two or preferably more checkmarks, and they really are completely distinct sources from distinct publishers, then, your topic is probably notable.
If you can't get two across-the-board passes on two distinct sources, you don't have evidence that your topic is notable.
There are exceptions for particular topics, which I will cover below in the exceptions section. Mostly these exceptions make the notability bar higher, not lower.

Questions you must ask about every source

Qualifying questions

All of the following questions must be answered in the affirmative for the source to qualify for the purposes of establishing notability.

Does the source provide significant coverage of the subject? The source may be primarily about another subject but there must be a decent amount of information, perhaps a couple-few paragraphs at least, talking about the subject in depth.
Does the publisher of the source have a reputation for reliability? Highly partisan, sensationalist or biased sources rarely present neutral information and are not suitable for establishing notability.^[b]
Does the publisher of the source have people and processes providing editorial oversight for the content being published? Most newspapers, magazines, books, peer-reviewed academic journals have such oversight. Many web sites do not.^[c]
Is the publisher of the source independent of the subject? Any source with a potential interest in promoting the subject should be excluded from consideration.

Disqualifying questions

If you answer "yes" to any of these questions for a source, you should not use it to establish notability.

Is the source a press release or largely written from one?^[d]
Is the source an interview with the subject or someone promoting the subject?
Is the source the official web site for the subject?
Is the source a social networking site, such as MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn?^[e]
Is the source IMDB?^[f]
Is the source Wikipedia itself, or any other source that takes user-submitted content?^[g]
Is the source Ancestry.com or Find-a-Grave?^[h]

Exceptions

Despite all the detail above, there are other cases where Wikipedia avoids having an article on a topic. Here are a few common exceptions, you may also want to look through the various special notability guidelines of topics, while being aware that how those standards are weighed against the general notability guideline is often not spelled out well, and as much a matter of precedent as written policy. This is, admittedly, frustrating.

The most important exception involves lower-profile living people who are famous for one, usually pretty negative effect, such as the victim of a crime. The considerations there are quite involved, see WP:BLP1E.

Events in general (crimes, festivals, things you might think of as "news topics") also form a common class of exception. In these cases, the criteria are narrower and more complex. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT.

There's a long list of types of content which are not encyclopedia articles that are inappropriate for inclusion. How to guides and dictionary-like definitional entries are common examples of things which are excluded because they "just don't belong in an encyclopedia." These are covered at WP:NOT.

High schools and elected politicians who are at the highest level of a national lawmaking body or higher are generally considered "inherently" notable, which is to say that they might be considered notable despite not finding the sources above. Most topics are not assessed via inherent notability.

If the subject is a company or organization, and the sources are routine local reporting of announcements from the organization are not good evidence of notability (See WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORP.) Routine announcements of upcoming performances are generally also excluded. (See WP:BAND.)

Where can I go for help?

The best way to ask whether a source is reliable for a particular context, and meets the various tests above, is the reliable sources noticeboard. Friendly, more general assistance for new editors can also be found at the Wikipedia Teahouse or the Wikipedia IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help ^connect.

You can also search the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard for discussions involving other sources, most common sources have had some discussion there at one point or another, and you can often get a good sense of whether you can use a particular source this way. To search those archives, look near the top of the noticeboard for the box marked "Search this noticeboard & archives" to search the RSN archives.

Notes

^ For sources that have a version available on the web, you will find it helpful to have the web URL of that copy handy if it exists, for off-line sources, a physical copy of the resource may be helpful. But don't forget that you can often find some version of a book or newspaper on-line, even though it's not the original source.
^ It is sometimes acceptable to use these sources in discussions of opinion and politics surrounding a subject but they are not suitable for establishing notability.
^ Database oriented websites such as IMDB generally attempt to be as inclusive as possible and so are not a good resource for gauging notability.
^ You can spot reprinted press releases in a number of ways. Press releases usually end with a paragraph about the company or person that reads like corporate boilerplate. Often press releases can be found with similar quotes at a variety of sources. It's not actually hard to become sensitive to the usual promotional language of such a release.
^ Note that in many cases you should have failed this source above as not being "completely unconnected with the subject." (See WP:SPS)
^ See WP:RS/IMDB
^ See WP:CIRCULAR
^ See WP:ELPEREN

[1] For sources that have a version available on the web, you will find it helpful to have the web URL of that copy handy if it exists, for off-line sources, a physical copy of the resource may be helpful. But don't forget that you can often find some version of a book or newspaper on-line, even though it's not the original source.

[2] It is sometimes acceptable to use these sources in discussions of opinion and politics surrounding a subject but they are not suitable for establishing notability.

[3] Database oriented websites such as IMDB generally attempt to be as inclusive as possible and so are not a good resource for gauging notability.

[4] You can spot reprinted press releases in a number of ways. Press releases usually end with a paragraph about the company or person that reads like corporate boilerplate. Often press releases can be found with similar quotes at a variety of sources. It's not actually hard to become sensitive to the usual promotional language of such a release.

[5] Note that in many cases you should have failed this source above as not being "completely unconnected with the subject." (See WP:SPS)

[6] See WP:RS/IMDB

[7] See WP:CIRCULAR

[8] See WP:ELPEREN

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]