User:Ca/Notability restructuring

In Wikipedia, notability is a test to determine if a topic is suitable for a standalone article. When a given topic is notable, an article about the subject can be written in a way that it follows policies
 * 1) Neutral point of view and
 * 2) What Wikipedia is not.

The purpose of notability is to ensure that it is possible to write an article in a neutral manner, and to avoid indiscriminate collection of information unfit for an encyclopedia. In other words, article and list topics must be notable, or "able to be noted in a quality manner".

Some subjects may require different levels of notability in order to warrant an article. For example, an article about politics would need to represent a higher amount of viewpoints, whereas to an article about a moth species would require little. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a is for. They limit the  of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni)

Levels of notability guidelines
This section provides a descriptive, general suggestions to how notability guidelines are applied in practice. This is not meant to be followed as an absolute rule. Out of all the notability guidelines, editors often see the general notability guideline (GNG) as the most significant measure of notability. Supplements to GNG, namely WP:NEVENT, WP:NCORP, and WP:NASTRO. Subjects that meet this criteria will most likely be kept, though exceptions may apply. Articles that marginally meet GNG may still be merged or deleted, especially if the topic is controversial, or if the subject of the article have requested deletion.
 * Level one

WP:NGEO, WP:NPROF, WP:NUMBER
 * Level two

These subject matters have been deemed by the community as requiring less stringent sourcing requirements. Subjects that pass these criteria are generally kept. These subject matters are often uncontroversial, and are covered in a different way than other subjects.

WP:NWEB, WP:NBIO, WP:NFILM, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NBOOK
 * Level three

Subjects meeting one or more of these criteria are presumed to be notable. These guidelines assess whether a subject has received a major award or accomplished a significant feat. In such cases, it is likely that appropriate sourcing exists to create an article about the topic. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing deletion to demonstrate that the subject is not notable.

WP:NSPORT
 * Level four

While NSPORT is an useful indicator that appropriate sourcing exists, community discussions have noted that it should be used with caution in deletion discussions. Generally, meeting NSPORT alone is not enough to establish notability. Instead, NSPORT allows for articles to be "put on hold" before deletion, with the purpose being to provide more time to verify whether appropriate sources exist or not.

These are types of subjects that make no claim to significance, which is a concept separate from notability. Some subject matters can be speedily deleted under the A7 or A9 criteria.
 * Level five