Wikipedia:Speak for Itself

Speaking for Itself
A Wikipedia article should speak for itself. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide information to readers, who can view the information in an article without the need to read the references. Verifiability is essential, but most readers will not look at the references. So if an article is nominated for deletion, or if a draft is submitted for review, references are necessary, but the text of the article is even more necessary.

If it is not obvious to a reviewer, when reading a draft, that the subject satisfies either general notability or a special notability guide, the draft should be declined, and the submitter should expand the text of the draft. Adding more references and resubmitting a draft is common, but if the draft was declined for notability concerns rather than verifiability concerns, the text of the draft should be expanded, and merely adding references is an error.

If an editor is reading an article that has been nominated for deletion and notability has been cited as an issue, it should be clear to the editor, from the text of the article, how the subject satisfies general notability, or what special notability guide is satisfied. If the text of the article does not establish notability, the article should either be deleted or improved. If the article is expanded to clarify the basis of notability, that is a basis for a Heymann Keep.

Articles at AFD and drafts at AFC can be triaged into three categories as to notability:
 * 1. Speaks for itself.  Draft should be accepted unless there are verifiability, tone, or COI issues.  Article should be kept if notability is the issue.
 * 2. Doubtful cases.  Either drafts at AFC or articles at AFD require further review.
 * 3. Fails to speak for itself.  Draft should be declined without the need for further review.  Article should either be deleted, or designated for improvement.

Articles and drafts that do not speak for themselves, and that do not explain clearly to a reader why the subject is notable, are mostly commonly either biographies of living persons or about companies. That may be because promotional behavior applies to living persons and to companies. Every article and draft should speak for itself, and should explain to a reader why the subject is notable, without the need to check the references.

Examples
The following are examples:

A stub which speaks for itself at AFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elsie_Reasoner_Ralph&oldid=967543009 The article states what her claim to fame was, as the first US female war correspondent, with a reference.

A short article which speaks for itself at AFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Jacob_F._Yeager&oldid=1020916271 It states that the subject received the Medal of Honor, with a reference, and so satisfies military notability.

A doubtful case at AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Munaf_Kapadia&oldid=1020396060 The information in the article is inadequate to establish general notability, but the reason for notability, a restaurant chain, is mentioned with references.

A doubtful case at AFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Keb_Cuevas&oldid=1019471083 The information in the article is inadequate to establish general notability, but the reason for notability as a businessperson is mentioned with references.

A fail at AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N._Arun&oldid=1021329768 The article does not explain why the subject is notable. The subject does not pass political notability. The article does not indicate significant coverage for general notability or multiple major roles for acting notability.

An initial fail at AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yam_Haus&oldid=1024745767 The article did not explain why the subject band was notable, because the article did not indicate that any of the musical notability criteria were passed, or that significant coverage was available for general notability. A poster at AFD identified other sources.