User:Sambc/Notability Demo

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia 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 correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard found in the guidelines listed in the table to the right. If an article currently does not give clear evidence of its notability, 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: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Definition
There is no clear definition of notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, beyond the trivial "worthy of note". In general, when we ask "is this topic notable", we mean "is there any likelihood that the general public (or those active within a given specialism or subculture) will be interested in this". The general notability guideline below tests this by asking if existing reliable sources have felt it worth their time and resources to cover the topic, but this is not the only way of testing notability. The community has developed a number of guidelines accepted by consensus, as well as active proposals, for testing notability within specific subject domains. The general notability guideline is, however, felt to be the only workable guideline that may demonstrate the notability of any topic.

Whichever guideline or criterion is used to test notability, it should be noted that passing a criterion indicates that a topic is most likely notable, while failing it does not indicate that a topic is most likely not notable. However, the term "non-notable" is often used to describe topics for which there has been no successful demonstration of notability by any accepted standard. Within the terms of the deletion policy, articles on such "non-notable" topics may end up deleted or merged (see Handling articles not satisfying the notability guidelines below for further guidance).

General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.


 * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources 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 what Wikipedia is not.
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, 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.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice and is thus considered notable.

General characteristics of notability
There are a number of subject specific guidelines, listed above and found in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. While each of these may give any means of testing the notability of topics within their area, there are some general principles that should generaly be adhered to, and generally apply regardless of whether the general notability guideline or a subject-specific guideline is used.

Notability requires objective evidence
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 is one example of such objective evidence; the subject specific guidelines give others.

Wikipedia is not a news source: 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 Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.

Notability is not temporary
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 speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.

The undue weight guideline applies to factual content and not just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Depending on the particular content, these policies and guidelines may require that content meet specific criteria. Care should be taken to read these policies and guidelines before adding information of questionable importance or relevance to any article.

Notability is not sufficient
That a topic be considered worthy of note is not sufficient for it to be possible or desirable to create an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Key policies, including What Wikipedia Is Not, verifiability, neutral point-of-view, and no original research must be satisfied. It is not practical to go into a full description of the interactions of these policies with each other and with the notability guideline here; however, here are a few points of particular note:


 * A stub article can be encyclopaedic in itself, and may never need expansion; however, in most cases an article consisting of a few sentences and an infobox is not a complete encyclopaedic article. Thus, in most cases, if there is no expectation that an article may grow beyond a stub, the article may not be considered appropriate for wikipedia.
 * Even where subject-specific guidelines do not require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", remember that there must still be enough information that may be confirmed through reliable sources without original research to write a useful article. This may come from sources not generally considered to speak to notability, such as directories or company registrations.

Handling articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria 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 independent sources could 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 for advice on where to look for sources.
 * Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a notability tag.
 * If the article is about a specialized field, use the PROJECT-NAME tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:
 * If the article meets our criteria 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 five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Proposed deletion.
 * For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.