Wikipedia Guide to Notability

Transcription

WIKIPEDIA NOTABILITY
Notability can be a confusing topic when it comes to
writing a Wikipedia article. This guide is intended to
help those understand what it takes to have a
Wikipedia page.
Mike Wood
Owner, Legalmorning.com
GUIDE TO
NOTABILITY
ON WIKIPEDIA
Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page
Contents
Introduction:.................................................................................................................................................. 2
Notability In General .................................................................................................................................... 3
Significant Coverage ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Reliable Sources............................................................................................................................................ 6
Independent of the Topic .............................................................................................................................. 7
Additional Notability Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 8
Wikipedia Notability Guidelines in Detail: .................................................................................................. 9
Copyright 2015 Legalmorning.com
1
Introduction:
Hopefully you are reading this prior to creating your first Wikipedia article. After all, a Wikipedia
article takes preparation and cannot simply be posted with making sure it meets guidelines. Too
often people do not take the time to plan out their path to Wikipedia article creation and wind up
getting their article deleted. All their hard work becomes wasted and they now face an uphill battle
getting the article posted a second time.
The first guideline that is critical for ALL Wikipedia articles is “notability.” Notability is what
makes something (or someone) “good” enough to have their own Wikipedia article. You will read
many discussions on talk pages and deletion discussions about a topic simply not being “notable”
or “doesn’t meet notability guidelines.” This is a Wikipedia editor’s way of saying that the topic
simply isn’t “good” enough to be included in the world’s largest encyclopedia.
If you are taking the time to read this guide, you are going to understand notability better than most
Wikipedia editors do. As such, your likelihood of being successful with creating a Wikipedia
article will increase.
As a disclaimer, I must tell you that I do not work for, nor am I affiliated with, the Wikimedia
Foundation. This is the non-profit group that runs Wikipedia and its sister sites.
I operate a Wikipedia editing service from my website Legalmorning.com where I also give tips
and advice to those who want to create Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has become so convoluted
with rules over the last decade that it has become nearly impossible for people to enjoy editing,
and difficult for newcomers to feel welcome enough to stick around. As such, the number of
volunteer editors continues to decline.
The decline of volunteer editors and the bureaucracy of established Wikipedia editors has created
a niche market for my service. However, I try to spend most of my time helping others learn how
to create articles so they can do it themselves. After all, learning how to edit Wikipedia is more
beneficial than paying me to create your article. Of course……….and here comes the sales
pitch……….I will gladly accept your project if your topic is notable enough.
Finally, you must keep in mind that I am not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia
community of editors as a whole (which includes you) have that say. Wikipedia is governed by
consensus so guidelines change based on consensus, as do the interpretation of those guidelines.
This guide here will help you through the process of understanding notability, but it is ultimately
up to you to decide if you feel a topic is notable.
2
Notability In General
So, what makes something notable?
Well, notability generally comes from references. As a rule of thumb, notability is established
when the topic has “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent” of the
topic. This is sometimes referred to as Wikipedia’s “Golden Rule.”
The statement above is all you need to remember. Once you understand what each term means in
regards to Wikipedia, you will easily be able to tell if a topic is notable enough.
I put this guide together as notability is commonly misunderstood, both by newbie and experienced
editors. Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability are long and difficult to understand. This guide breaks
things down into easily understood terms that anyone can understand. After all, you just want to
create a Wikipedia article, not create a flux capacitor (yes, I aged myself with the Back to the
Future reference).
However, if you are a bookworm and like to read volumes of rules and guidelines, I have included
all Wikipedia guidelines on notability at the end of this guide. Feel free to read them, study them,
burn them, or whatever.
Can you believe I actually found a free use image of the flux capacitor? How about that?
Thanks to Shane K for taking the time to upload it to his Flickr account.
3
Significant Coverage
Significant coverage means that the topic is covered by numerous sources and those sources
cover the topic “in-depth.”
Here’s an example:
Let’s assume we are checking for in-depth coverage of the company “The Honest Kitchen,” an
organic dog food supplier. There are plenty of references out there which means it has received
significant coverage, but which ones can actually be used for notability (as they cover the company
“in-depth”)?
There are two articles that I looked at to demonstrate Wikipedia’s definition of in-depth.
The first is a June 15, 2015 article in the Daily Herald. The article name is “Culver’s, Pet Supplies
Plus host 4th ‘Pets-a-Palooza’ fundraiser, adoption event.” If you look at the image from the article
below, you will see that The Honest Kitchen is talked about; however, it is only a mention of their
participation. This is referred to as a “brief mention.” While it can be used as a reference to show
they participated in the event, it cannot be taken into account for notability.
If all the sources you find on The Honest Kitchen are brief mentions such as the above, this will
not meet the definition of “significant coverage” as there is nothing that talks about the company
in-depth.
4
However, let’s take a look at the second example:
This article is from Forbes. The article title is “Does Your Dog Eat Organic? Meet The ‘Human
Grade’ Pet Food Startup.” This article talks in depth about organic dogfood (which coincidentally
is what The Honest Kitchen does. Good chance this one will talk about them).
In fact, you can see below that not only does it mention them, the majority of the article is a feature
about the company itself. It details who they are, what they do, and lays out some of the company’s
history.
This is the type of article that shows notability. Now, there is no set number of articles needed to
show notability. As such, I would advise finding as many as you can. Obviously, the more articles
you have that talk about the topic in-depth, the more you can show that the topic is notable.
5
Reliable Sources
Reliable Sources are something that are debated on a daily basis by Wikipedians. Basically, a
source is considered reliable if it is from a published source that is trusted. This means that the
publication must have editorial control over its content (e.g., fact checkers) and it must be known
as being reliable.
As a general rule, simply familiarize yourself with sources used in other articles. Examples
of reliable sources include:
The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
Time Magazine
The USA Today
Topics can also dictate what is considered reliable. For instance, medical articles generally do not
allow for references from anything other than peer reviewed medical journals. This means that
although The New York Times may talk about a new breakthrough medical treatment, the
Wikipedia article about the treatment will generally only use published studies on the treatment,
not The New York Times Article.
If you have a question about a source and whether it is reliable, there is a noticeboard where you
can go and pose the questions. Simply follow this link, create a new topic, and ask if a specific
link is reliable. You will receive numerous responses from editors who patrol that page on a regular
basis.
There is a general checklist that Wikipedia has put together to help you determine if a source
is reliable.
So, familiarize yourself with the sources generally used in Wikipedia, use the checklist here, and
consult the noticeboard with any questions about a specific source that you located.
6
Independent of the Topic
Being “independent” is difficult to understand, especially for those new to Wikipedia. However,
it is at the core of Wikipedia and must be followed in order to maintain its integrity. Simply put, a
self-published source is not to be used for notability. There are many times when a self-published
source can be used (such as using a company website to source where the headquarters are located),
but never for purpose of notability.
Self-published sources can include the following:




Official websites
Social media
Official blog
Press releases
If you want to establish notability with a press release, you are barking up the wrong tree. The
article you create will be quickly deleted as the press release is not considered independent of the
topic.
As with many other Wikipedia guidelines, “independence” can vary depending on the topic.
Wikipedia provides the following examples:
Here is why it is difficult for newbies to understand. They see self-published sources used all the
time in Wikipedia which gives a false perception that they are acceptable. In fact, self-published
sources ARE acceptable in Wikipedia, but not for establishing notability. So, you will find
social media profiles, press releases, and company websites cited everywhere on Wikipedia, but if
they are being used for notability purposes, chances are the topic isn’t notable enough for
Wikipedia and is likely to be deleted.
7
Additional Notability Guidelines
Now that you understand the “general notability guidelines,” we need to go through the various
notability guidelines specific to each topic. Thought we were done didn’t you?
These additional guidelines are set up to help editors choose which topics are notable for specific
fields. For instance, a different set of notability guidelines apply to “schools” than do “musicians.”
In fact, most schools that are equivalent to high school or above are considered defacto notable as
long as you can find a reference to prove it exists. This is a large contrast to guidelines for
biographies, which are the most stringent notability guidelines on Wikipedia.
I would advise you to consult with the specific guideline on the topic you are writing about before
you attempt to publish your article. Here are links for quick reference:












Academics
Astronomical objects
Books
Events
Films
Geographic features
Music
Numbers
Organizations and companies
People
Sports and athletics
Web content
8
Wikipedia Notability Guidelines in Detail:
The following is a detailed description of all guidelines as taken from Wikipedia. These guidelines
are subject to change from time to time, but they have generally held the same over the last couple
of years. As stated previously, I would advise that you consult with the notability guideline for the
specific topic you are writing about prior to publishing your article.
9
Contents
1
Wikipedia:Notability
1
1.1
General notability guideline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.2
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.3
Article content does not determine notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.4
Notability requires verifiable evidence
2
1.4.1
3
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
2
1.5
Notability is not temporary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
1.6
Whether to create standalone pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
1.7
Why we have these requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1.8
Common circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
1.8.1
Self-promotion and publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
1.8.2
Events
5
1.8.3
Stand-alone lists
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
1.8.4
Fringe topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
1.10 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
1.11 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
8
2.1
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
2.2
General notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
2.3
Specific criteria notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
2.4
Citation metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
1.9
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)
14
3.1
Basic notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.1.1
No inherent notability
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.1.2
No inherited notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
3.2
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
3.3
Failing all criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
i
ii
CONTENTS
3.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
3.4.1
Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
3.4.2
Failure to explain the subject’s notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
3.4.3
Insufficient sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
3.5.1
Dealing with minor planets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
3.5.2
Objects named after famous individuals or characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
3.6
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
3.7
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
3.5
4
5
Wikipedia:Notability (books)
19
4.1
Coverage notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
4.2
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
4.2.1
Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
4.3
Derivative articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
4.4
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
4.5
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
4.6
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Wikipedia:Notability (events)
24
5.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
5.2
Inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
5.2.1
The event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
5.2.2
The coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
5.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
5.3.1
Routine coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
5.3.2
Sensationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
5.3.3
Criminal acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
5.3.4
People notable for only one event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Breaking news . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
5.4.1
Don't rush to create articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
5.4.2
Don't rush to delete articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
5.4.3
Wikinews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
5.5
Alternatives to deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
5.6
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
5.7
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
5.4
6
Special cases
Other circumstances
Wikipedia:Notability (films)
30
6.1
30
General principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS
iii
6.2
Reliable sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
6.3
Other evidence of notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
6.4
Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
6.5
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
6.6
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
6.7
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
6.8
Relevant debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
7
8
9
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)
34
7.1
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
7.2
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
7.3
Geographic regions, areas and places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
7.4
Buildings and objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
7.5
Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
7.6
No inherited notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
7.7
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
Wikipedia:Notability (music)
37
8.1
Criteria for musicians and ensembles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
8.2
Criteria for composers and lyricists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
8.3
Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
8.4
Recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
8.4.1
Albums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
8.4.2
Singles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
8.4.3
Unreleased material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
8.5
Songs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
8.6
Concert tours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
8.7
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
8.8
If the subject is not notable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
8.9
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)
43
9.1
Notability of kinds of numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
9.2
Notability of sequences of numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
9.3
Notability of specific individual numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
9.3.1
Integers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
9.3.2
Irrational numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
9.4
Notability of lists of numbers and categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
9.5
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
iv
CONTENTS
9.6
See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
46
47
10.1 Decisions based on verifiable evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
10.1.1 No inherent notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
10.1.2 No inherited notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
10.2 Primary criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
10.2.1 Depth of coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
10.2.2 Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
10.2.3 Independence of sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
10.2.4 Illegal conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
10.3 Special note: advertising and promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
10.4 Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
10.4.1 Non-commercial organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
10.4.2 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
10.4.3 Commercial organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
10.4.4 Products and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
10.5 If it’s not notable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
10.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
10.7 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
11 Wikipedia:Notability (people)
54
11.1 Basic criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
11.2 Additional criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
11.2.1 Any biography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
11.2.2 Academics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
11.2.3 Creative professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
11.2.4 Crime victims and perpetrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
11.2.5 Entertainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
11.2.6 Military personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
11.2.7 Politicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
11.2.8 Sports personalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
11.3 Invalid criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
11.4 Failing all criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
11.5 Special cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
11.5.1 Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
11.5.2 Failure to explain the subject’s notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
11.5.3 Insufficient sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
11.6 People notable for only one event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
CONTENTS
v
11.7 Lists of people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
11.8 Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
11.9 Articles on Wikipedians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
11.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
11.11Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
12 Wikipedia:Notability (sports)
62
12.1 Applicable policies and guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
12.2 Basic criteria
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
12.3 Professional sports persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
12.3.1 American football/Canadian football . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
12.3.2 Association football . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
12.3.3 Athletics/track & field and long-distance running . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
12.3.4 Australian rules football . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
12.3.5 Badminton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
12.3.6 Baseball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
12.3.7 Basketball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
12.3.8 Boxing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
12.3.9 Cricket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
12.3.10 Curling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
12.3.11 Cycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
12.3.12 Equestrian sport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
12.3.13 Figure skating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
12.3.14 Golf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
12.3.15 Gymnastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
12.3.16 Horse racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
12.3.17 Ice hockey
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
12.3.18 Kickboxing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
12.3.19 Mixed martial arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
12.3.20 Motorsports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
12.3.21 Rodeo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
12.3.22 Rugby league . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
12.3.23 Rugby union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
12.3.24 Sumo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
12.3.25 Tennis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
12.3.26 Triathlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
12.4 Amateur sports persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
12.4.1 College athletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
12.4.2 Gaelic games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
vi
CONTENTS
12.4.3 High school and pre-high school athletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
12.5 Organizations and games notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
12.5.1 Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
12.5.2 Olympic and Paralympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
12.5.3 Individual seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
12.5.4 Individual games or series
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
12.7 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
12.5.5 Rivalries
12.6 Research links
13 Wikipedia:Notability (web)
79
13.1 Decisions based on verifiable evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
13.1.1 No inherent notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
13.1.2 No inherited notability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
13.2 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
13.3 If the content is not notable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
13.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
13.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
13.6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
13.6.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
13.6.2 Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
13.6.3 Content license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
Chapter 1
Wikipedia:Notability
This page is an article notability guideline. For the neutrality policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For Notifications, see WP:NOTIFS. For article footnotes, see WP:NOTES. For other uses, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
and Wikipedia:Too soon.
"WP:IMPORTANCE" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:IMPORTANT, which was replaced by this guideline.
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not
have a separate article. Wikipedia’s concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of
topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or “worthy of notice”. 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.
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed
in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
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 topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia’s policies regarding
content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living
persons.
1.1 General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be
suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
• “Significant coverage” addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract
the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source
material.[1]
• “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, and in any language. Availability of
secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
1
2
CHAPTER 1. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY
• “Sources”[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no
fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are
generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from
the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• “Independent of the subject” excludes works produced by the article’s subject or someone affiliated with it. For
example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject’s website are not considered independent.[4]
• “Presumed” means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject
should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a standalone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an
indiscriminate collection of information.[5]
If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another
article.
1.2 Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article
The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability
guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or
people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in
the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about
list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.
1.3 Article content does not determine notability
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of
Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if
the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject’s
notability.
1.4 Notability requires verifiable evidence
The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has
received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional
activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources
generally.
1.4.1
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in
an article
The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is
not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation.
Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or
existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating
an article or deletion, or casting a !vote based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to
1.5. NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY
3
attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by
a search.
Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article’s subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not
been named yet. However, once an article’s notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist
is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in
independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.
1.5 Notability is not temporary
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of “significant coverage” in accordance with the general
notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of
existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously
deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier
considered.
In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains,
or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.
Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing
in the past, a topic is “notable” in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already “taken notice of it”. As such,
brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described
by notability of events.
1.6 Whether to create standalone pages
Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:
Merging
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that
we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia,
as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a
broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about
whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how
to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia,
and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.
• Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of
a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama
presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip,
for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as
standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight.
Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream
concept.
• Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable,
can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they
were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable
topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy.
In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual
articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
4
• What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be
a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the
other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such
a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is
unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage
may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a
future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).
Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page.
Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects
are cheap).
1.7 Why we have these requirements
Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a
separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create
articles that comply with major content policies.
• We require “significant coverage” in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half
a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about
the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a
larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)
• We require the existence of “reliable sources” so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random
gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
• We require that all articles rely primarily on “third-party” or “independent sources” so that we can write a fair
and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not
advertising a product, service, or organization.
• We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original
research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
• We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral
point of view, rather than representing only one author’s point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the
same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the “multiple”
requirement.
• We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles
nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to
present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about
translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged
article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia.
(For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)
Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified
under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (i.e., all
disambiguation pages and some lists).
1.8. COMMON CIRCUMSTANCES
5
1.8 Common circumstances
1.8.1
Self-promotion and publicity
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:
Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are
not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself
(or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they
have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other
influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for
discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical
manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject
has received.
1.8.2
Events
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (events)
Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute
significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage,
and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of
the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.
In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable,
or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.
1.8.3
Stand-alone lists
Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) § Selection criteria
See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists § Adding individual items to a list
Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as “List of Xs”
or “Xs”) is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a
group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone
list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in
general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently
notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently
notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as
“Lists of X of Y”) or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic crosscategorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to
demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.
1.8.4
Fringe topics
For guidance on Fringe topics, see WP:FRINGE.
6
1.9 Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable
articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally
deleted.
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[6] for advice on where to look for sources.
• Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
• If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} 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 after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article’s verifiable content
into a broader article providing context.[7] Otherwise, if deleting:[8]
• 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 seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
• For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected
to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be
debated and deliberated for seven days.
For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other
options may help the community to preserve any useful material.
1.10 See also
• An extensive set of subject-specific guideline pages (SSGs) for different aspects of notability can be found at
Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with subject specific essays and proposed guidelines at Category:Wikipedia
notability.
• Wikipedia’s article on Notability in Wikipedia.
• For commentary and discussion of this guideline, see Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Notability and Category:
Wikipedia essays on notability.
• Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, an essay on the difference between first-person, first-party, and
primary sources.
• Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources
• Wikipedia:Viability of lists
• Wikipedia:Search engine test [cf. Google (verb) ?]
• Wikipedia:Relevance of content
• Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining
1.11. NOTES
7
1.11 Notes
[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence
mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). “Tough love
child of Kennedy”. The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.
[2] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects
a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
[3] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is
common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines,
but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always
constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
[4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See
also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
[5] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example,
directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that
may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
[6] Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source
material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a Wikipedia
project related to the topic, and ask for help there.
[7] For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a “list of minor characters in ..."; articles on
schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be
merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be
merged into the main article on that group or event.
[8] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should
include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in
another manner.
Chapter 2
Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
"WP:ACADEMIC" redirects here. For a list of academic studies of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Academic studies of
Wikipedia.
The Deletion Sorting Project has a list of deletion of articles related to academics and educators at Wikipedia:WikiProject
Deletion sorting/Academics and educators.
This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics
as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in
scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement.
• Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics
hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS,
etc.). However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry,
financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not
have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable
for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.
• School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial
scholarly research and are known for such research. They are rather evaluated by the usual rules for notability in
their profession.
• See professor for more information about academic ranks and their meanings. Note that academic ranks are different in different countries.
This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:
AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in
some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under
this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.
2.1 Criteria
Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or
other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which
it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which
follow.
8
2.2. GENERAL NOTES
9
1. The person’s research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as
demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or
association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly
society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
4. The person’s academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a
substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or “Distinguished Professor” appointment at
a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named
chairs are uncommon).
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or
major academic society.
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their
subject area.
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist),
and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
2.2 General notes
• It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for
coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia
must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, once notability has been established
through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are
widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.
• The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an “Average Professor Test”. Put simply: when judged against the
average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more
accomplished than others in the field?
• Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of
these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to
make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly
by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena,
trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.
2.3 Specific criteria notes
1. The person’s research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
10
CHAPTER 2. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ACADEMICS)
• See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well.
• The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited
academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly
publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person’s work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates
and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
• To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such
as journals or academic books.
• In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt
MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does
not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments
made there may be used for that purpose.
• Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more
theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in
sciences most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities
book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The
meaning of “substantial number of publications” and “high citation rates” is to be interpreted in line with the
interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure.
• Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or
idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary
to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than
the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed
to the person in question.
• There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards
satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly
publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works;
publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person; special
conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or
lecture series after a particular person; and others.
• For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other
than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where
giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical
national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable
academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited
lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments,
or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose.
• For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently
broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant
subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, “fluid mechanics”, "Drosophila genetics”
are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is
an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1,
except for the actual leaders in those subjects.
• Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion
1.
• Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying
Criterion 1.
2.3. SPECIFIC CRITERIA NOTES
11
• Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g., having a small Erdos number) is
not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
• For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the
Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser
significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy
Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable
foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and
honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section).
• Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and
honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify
under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.
• Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or
from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who’s
Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association
(e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that
is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
• For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient (most
newly formed societies fall into that category).
4. The person’s academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
• Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks
(or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or “Distinguished Professor” appointment at a
major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs
are uncommon).
• Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior
faculty members with endowed appointments.
• Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs
at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or
major academic society.
• Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or ViceChancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director
of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university),
president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean,
Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are
possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Heads of
institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered
by Criterion 6; their heads may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO
or WP:N guidelines.
12
CHAPTER 2. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ACADEMICS)
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
• Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic
expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for
academics and so falls short of this mark.
• Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic
subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided
the books deal with that expert’s field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories
are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline
or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.
• Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7.
8. The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject
area.
• Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. However, their head editor may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general
WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and
meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
2.4 Citation metrics
The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major
citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly
in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and
the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, the
social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities (very incompletely) back to 1975, but only the largest universities can
afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases
are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal
articles – citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases
should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication
is essential, or humanistic disciplines where book publication is most important. Web of Knowledge provides a free index
of highly cited researchers, which may be of some value. In individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, SciFinder Scholar
(Chemical Abstracts), and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts,
but access to them is also not free and usually requires a university computer account.
• A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues
have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically
up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles
online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For
books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by
publisher’s permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof
of non-notability. In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web
sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly
more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.
• A caution about PubMed: Medline, now usually accessed as part of PubMed, is a well-established broadly based
search engine, covering much of biology and all of medicine, published since 1967 and sometimes even earlier. It
includes a few journals in medically related clinical subjects, but is not complete in those. Further, not all articles
2.4. CITATION METRICS
13
in PubMed are from peer-reviewed journals, as it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality,
including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover. It also exhaustively covers letters to the editor and
similar material, not all of which is of any significance.
• A caution about “related articles": In PubMed, and most other databases, “related articles” are not articles that
necessarily cite the original; they are articles on the same general topic, usually selected by having title words or
citations in common. Some may cite the original (and some clearly do not, for they will have been published before
the articles in question). They are useful for finding additional papers on a subject, which is the purpose for which
they were designed. The only way to count citations using such a listing in, for example, PubMed, is the tedious
method of looking at every one of the related articles published after the article in question, finding its “cited article”
display, and check if it is there. (Some PubMed records do not list cited articles, for a variety of reasons.) Nor will
such a listing necessarily include all the citations. – Help for “Related articles” feature
• Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely
accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent;
some disciplines have higher average citations than others.
• For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete
information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person’s books are held in various academic libraries
(this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.
• A report from the association of European computer science departments lists ten bullet points for evaluation of
computer science research, two of which emphasize the importance of non-journal publication and one of which
specifically cautions against the use of Web of Science: Meyer, Bertrand; Choppy, Christine; Staunstrup, Jørgen;
van Leeuwen, Jan (2009), “Research Evaluation for Computer Science”, Communications of the ACM 52 (4): 31–
34, doi:10.1145/1498765.1498780. Instead, it recommends Google scholar or Citeseer for this field.
Chapter 3
Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)
This guideline is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of astronomical objects. The guideline covers all significant
physical entities, associations or structures that current science has confirmed to exist in outer space. The guideline does
not cover topics relating to artificial structures in space, such as artificial satellites, spacecraft, space probes, space stations
or space telescopes. It also does not cover terrestrial locations, airspace, or material that has been transported to the
Earth’s atmosphere or surface, including moon rocks, meteor showers and meteorites.
Simply stated, an astronomical object is a body of matter (or collection of such bodies) that is bound together by a
fundamental force, has boundaries defined by large-scale structure (e.g. voids), or is a combined grouping through viewing
perspective (e.g. optical double stars). This includes galaxies, nebulae, star clusters, star systems, individual stars, planets,
minor planets, asteroids, comets, and moons. It can also include bodies of matter that are held together by masses other
than their own, such as a circumstellar disk, accretion disc, or zodiacal dust.
3.1 Basic notability
3.1.1
Notable means “worthy of being noted” or “attracting notice”. It is not synonymous with “fame” or “importance”. Please
consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature,
science, or education. Major astronomical objects are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from
reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller objects can be notable, and arbitrary standards should
not be used to create a bias favoring prominent astronomical objects.
Even if editors personally believe an astronomical object is “important” or “inherently notable”, astronomical objects are
only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. The fact that an astronomical object exists in
space is by itself not enough to support notability. There exists a perennial debate on Wikipedia about the notability
of geographic features, with no clear consensus; it has been practice that all named geographic features (mountains,
rivers, hills) are notable enough for an article. Some editors have included astronomical objects in the blanket category
of geographic features, with the result being that it is acceptable for individual astronomical objects to be part of a list of
similar objects. This notability guideline does not alter that practice with respect to lists. However, unlike Earth-based
geographic features, arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to be visited or run across by a general reader of Wikipedia.
Therefore, unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a
general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low. This is not a matter
of dubious predictions; it is just common sense. Therefore, unlike Earth-based geographic features, the existence of an
astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named (see below) does not guarantee notability.
14
3.2. CRITERIA
3.1.2
15
No inherited notability
In the sense that an object has been discovered or observed, it may have been noted by a scientist or scientists. For the
purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No astronomical
object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is. If the individual object has received no or very
little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable even though astronomical objects of its type are commonly
notable. Also, just because the object is listed by name in a paper does not ensure notability. An object may be on the
observation list of a large-scale survey, or a study of many objects of a specific type. Unless the astronomical object is the
primary, or one of the primary, targets of a study, then such a study should not be used to support the object’s notability.
Just because an object is listed in a database does not mean it is notable. Some databases and surveys, such as the
JPL Small-Body Database or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey contain many thousands of objects, whereas others concern
themselves with specific classes of objects and have fewer entries. Several, if not most, of the listed objects have little
information beyond their physical parameters and discovery circumstances. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly
duplicate content in these databases. Likewise, just because a minor planet has been named by the Committee for SmallBody Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean an object is notable. Unless the object has been the subject of
significant study beyond discovery and initial parameter constraints, it probably does not warrant an article.
This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain tables of properties and information
related to astronomical objects. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia’s content policies, such as verifiability
and no original research.
3.2 Criteria
If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources, it probably
qualifies for a stand-alone article. If an astronomical object meets none of these criteria, it may still be notable, provided
it meets the conditions of WP:Notability, though the merits of an article about an astronomical object will rest primarily
on material that is verifiable through independent sources.
1. The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. For ordinary stars, this includes any object with an HR catalogue
identifier.
2. The object is listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers (e.g. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue),
or a catalogue of high historical importance (e.g. New General Catalogue). This is the equivalent of being listed in
a “selective” database for academic journals. Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS
or 2dFGRS isn't enough for notability.
3. The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms,
such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A
single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects,
such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the
paper needs to have significant commentary on the object.
4. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the advent of stellar astrophotography or automated technology.
(The first asteroid discovered photographically was 323 Brucia in 1891.)
For the purposes of this guideline, “independent” means independent of the scientist or scientists who discovered the
object, or others who may have a conflict of interest in promoting the object. The guideline does not prohibit the use of
sources generated by the primary researchers, but they are not sufficient to establish notability.
Although some objects might qualify for a standalone article based on this guideline alone, it may still be best to create
redirects to a more general article. For example, it might be best to consolidate the information about the individual
planets of a planetary system on the article about its parent star. Whether it is best to consolidate or to have individual
articles should be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the relevant article’s talk page.
16
CHAPTER 3. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ASTRONOMICAL OBJECTS)
Important note: These criteria do not supersede WP:N, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of
astronomical objects. If an astronomical object does not meet the general notability guideline, especially if it lacks evidence
of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it risks being merged or redirected to an existing article, or
deleted altogether.
3.3 Failing all criteria
If no criteria can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not
worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then there are two deletion procedures to be considered:[lower-alpha 1]
• For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, use the
{{subst:prod}} tag. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects (see Wikipedia: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 its merits will be discussed for 7 days.
When nominating an article for deletion, please place {{WikiProject Astronomy}} at the top of its talk page. This will
notify WikiProject Astronomy of the deletion discussion.
3.4 Special cases
3.4.1
Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list
If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but a few sentences about
the object may help another article or list:
• If an appropriate list already exists (e.g. a sub-list of List of minor planets), then create a redirect for the object to
the list. (For minor planets, see dealing with minor planets below.)
• Be sure to Merge any appropriate information from the article into a broader article or list providing context.
• If a basic redirect is not possible, but an article exists that the information could be merged, place a {{merge to}}
tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged. Be sure to start a section in the target article’s
talk page to discuss the merge.
• If no article or list currently exists into which the astronomical object can be merged, consider writing the article
yourself or request the article be written.
Astronomical objects that are part of a hierarchy of objects, such as a natural satellite system, planetary system or a star
system, may be beneficially merged into the article about the system or hosting object. The criteria applied to merged
article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. Content coverage within such system articles is
governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.
Only use AfD as a last resort for individual articles. If an editor is dealing with a large mass of articles, then redirect or
PROD is more appropriate, because it is not ideal to flood AfD logs with these requests. When in doubt, bring the issue
to WikiProject Astronomical objects for discussion.
3.4.2
Failure to explain the subject’s notability
If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[lower-alpha 2] try to improve it by:
3.5. EXAMPLES
17
• Rewriting it yourself
• Asking for advice on the article’s talk page
• Starting a discussion at WikiProject Astronomical objects (especially consider this if it concerns more than one or
two articles)
3.4.3
Insufficient sources
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:
• Look for sources yourself.
• A good place to look for astronomical papers is the Astrophysics Data System (ADS) abstract service. Put
the name of the object(s) in quotes and place it in the subject/keyword box. Try possible variations of the
object’s name if your first searches don't find any papers.
• Many astronomical objects outside of the Solar System have an entry in the SIMBAD database. Try a lookup
of the object by identifier, then use the “display -> reference summary” in the “reference” section. These will
often have a link back to ADS, which may include free copies of the articles.
• The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) contains data for over a million objects, including entries in
the New General Catalogue (NGC). For each object, the data entries typically list the reference source as a
bibliographic code that links back to an ADS abstract.
• When using a search engine to look for information on an object, also try passing standard abbreviations or
alternate catalogue identifiers as search terms. (See astronomical naming conventions.)
• Ask for advice on where to look for sources on the article’s talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy.
• Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to notify other editors.
3.5 Examples
3.5.1
Dealing with minor planets
Asteroid 182016 (1999 XF255), listed on List of minor planets: 182001–183000 can be found on the JPL Small-Body
Database (JPL SBDB). However, it does not show up in searches for additional references. The asteroid exists, but up to
now is not an object that has warranted further study. Placing information about this object onto the List of minor planets
page is more appropriate in this circumstance than creating a stand-alone article.
532 Herculina is another asteroid. This object has had many follow-up studies, including an observation by the Hubble
Space Telescope. It is appropriate for an object like this to have a stand-alone article.
Before 2012, when this notability guideline did not yet exist, approximately 20,000 asteroid stubs were mass-created
by bots and human editors. This created a considerable backlog of articles to be cleaned up, redirected, merged, or
deleted. By consensus, asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing. To not overly burden
the community, editors should not nominate more than 10 asteroids a day to AfD for discussion. For asteroids numbered
above 2000, if an article of questionable notability is found, and a good-faith search has failed to locate references
establishing notability, then it is appropriate to redirect the stub to the appropriate List of... article, keeping the original
categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information. For best results, the redirect can be linked to the section containing
the specific entry on the list article. For example, suppose you want to create a redirect to the section with the minor
planet 10529 Giessenburg entry on the List of minor planets: 10001–11000 article. This minor planet is found in the
section #501 of the list, which covers the sub-range 501–600. Hence, a redirect to that range can be created (see diff)
with the following content:
#REDIRECT [[List of minor planets: 10001–11000#501]] {{R to list entry}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Giessenburg}}
[[Category:Main Belt asteroids]] [[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1990]]
18
CHAPTER 3. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ASTRONOMICAL OBJECTS)
3.5.2
Objects named after famous individuals or characters
If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be
appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is
not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may
also be included in its article.
3.6 See also
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Search engine test
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
3.7 Notes
include attempts to find sources that might demonstrate notability, and/or information that would demonstrate notability in
another manner.
[2] The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the object is notable. External arguments via a talk page
or AFD debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the
existence of the information on the article page itself.
Chapter 4
Wikipedia:Notability (books)
“WP:NB” redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject New Brunswick or Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
“WP:BK” redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles.
This guideline provides some additional criteria for use in deciding whether a book should or should not have an article
on Wikipedia. Satisfying this notability guideline generally indicates a book warrants an article.
A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific
notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article.
This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that
book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy
deletion.
The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable,
and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline.
Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. It is not enough to simply assert that a book meets
a criterion. Verifiable reliable sources that substantiate that claim must actually exist.
“Notability” as used herein is not a reflection of a book’s merit. A book may be brilliantly written, fascinating and topical,
while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an encyclopedia article
about that book.
4.1 Coverage notes
Though the concept of a "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the
following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga); magazines; reference
works such as dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs; music-specific publications such as instruction and notation books and librettos; instruction manuals; and exam prep books. Specific guidelines may be developed.
Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy.
The criteria set forth below apply to books in electronic form (or e-books). An e-book that does not meet the criteria of
this guideline is nevertheless notable if it meets the criteria of the notability guideline for web-specific content. An e-book
that meets the criteria of this guideline does not need to meet the criteria of that guideline in order to be notable. A book
included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet the threshold standards.
19
20
CHAPTER 4. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (BOOKS)
4.2 Criteria
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books,
television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
2. The book has won a major literary award.
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant
motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[5] colleges, universities or post-graduate
programs in any particular country.[6]
5. The book’s author is so historically significant that any of the author’s written works may be considered notable.
This does not simply mean that the book’s author is notable by Wikipedia’s standards; rather, the book’s author is
of exceptional significance and the author’s life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic
study.
The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to
books not yet published.
4.2.1
Other considerations
Threshold standards
A book should have, at a minimum, an ISBN (for books published after 1975 in a country where ISBNs are normally
used), and should be catalogued by its country of origin’s official or de facto national library (if that country has an official
or de facto national library). For example, in the United States books are catalogued by the Library of Congress; in the
United Kingdom at the British Library; in Australia at the National Library of Australia; in Canada at the Library and
Archives Canada; in France at the Bibliothèque nationale de France; in Singapore at the National Library Board; in Brazil
by the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional; in Argentina at Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina; and in India at the
National Library of India. For a complete list, see List of national libraries.
However, these criteria are exclusionary rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a
book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—books that are
notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear.
Articles that are plot summaries
Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without including original research or
unverifiable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be
summary-only descriptions of works, contained in criteria 1 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Self-publication
Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability.[7] Exceptions do exist, such as Robert
Gunther's Early Science in Oxford and Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable
by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1.
Many vanity press books are assigned ISBN numbers, may be listed in a national library, and may be found through a
Google Books search, none of which makes them notable.
4.3. DERIVATIVE ARTICLES
21
Books by Wikipedians
If the Wikipedia article on a book has been created by an author of that book, or by any other interested party such as
an editor or member of the editorial staff of that book, this has no effect, one way or the other, on whether that book is
notable. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.
Online bookstores
A book’s listing at either or both of the online bookstores Barnes & Noble.com and Amazon.com is not by itself an
indication of notability because both websites include large numbers of vanity press publications. A book’s listing at any
other online bookstore that includes large numbers of vanity press publications shall be treated in the same way. There is
no consensus as to whether a book’s ranking at Amazon (found in the “product details” section) constitutes evidence of
notability.
Not yet published books
Articles about books that are not yet published are accepted only if they are not excluded by the Wikipedia is not a crystal
ball policy, and only under criteria other than those provided by this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the
book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should be independent sources which provide strong evidence that the
book will be published, and which include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication.
Non-contemporary books
The vast majority of books whose Wikipedia articles are nominated for deletion, and whose notability could reasonably be
called into question, are contemporary. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published earlier may occasionally
be disputed and the criteria specified above, intended primarily for contemporary books, may be unsuitable because they
would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice.
Common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely
the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted, the fame that
the book enjoys or enjoyed in the past, its place in the history of literature, its value as a historical source and its age.
Academic and technical books
Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes
than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only
be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are
inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are
worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include,
in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic
publications or in the media,[9] the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have
been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is,
or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions.
4.3 Derivative articles
Articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally
lowering the level of notability. While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on
a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative
article from it is not. Exceptions do exist, especially in the case of very famous books. For example, Charles Dickens'
22
CHAPTER 4. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (BOOKS)
A Christmas Carol clearly warrants a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. When a book has been split too
finely to support the notability of individual subtopics, merging content back into the book’s article is appropriate.
In some situations— for example, if a given book itself does not appear to be notable, but the author is notable— it may
be more appropriate to feature material about the book in the author’s article rather than creating a separate article for
that book. It may sometimes be appropriate to merge an article on a book into an article that is a bibliography or list of
books. This might, for example, facilitate the inclusion of material on anonymous works that, because those works are
anonymous, cannot be merged into their authors’ articles. If, in such a case, the book cannot be merged only because the
notable author’s article, or the bibliography or list of books, does not currently exist, consider writing the author’s article,
or the bibliography or list, yourself or request that it be written.
4.4 Resources
• Clicking on any linked ISBN number on Wikipedia takes you to Special:Booksources where preformatted links
for the specific book are provided, allowing access to multiple library catalogues, bookseller databases and other
book resources.
This might be an issue as different formats of a book (i.e. ebook, audiobook, printed book) will
have different ISBNs, and they will often not be sequential, especially for older books that were
originally published before ebooks or audiobooks existed.
• The British Library’s online catalogue[10]
• The Library of Congress Online Catalog:[11] a searchable database useful in identifying publisher, edition, etc.
• The Literary Encyclopedia:[12] 3,300 profiles of authors, works and literary and historical topics and references of
18,000 works.
• Norton anthology of world literature:[13] useful in the exploration of world literature.
• Questia Online Library, allows full-text search, and paid subscription reading access to 64,000+ books and 1,000,000+
journal, magazine, and newspaper articles in their collection. Their strength is full text of recent academic books
by major publishers such as Oxford University Press, University of North Carolina Press, and Greenwood Press,
along with thousands of older academic books that are available only in larger university libraries.
• Worldcat:[14] search for a book in library catalogues. Contains 1.8 billion items in 18,000 libraries worldwide.
4.5 See also
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Books
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels
4.6. NOTES
23
4.6 Notes
[1] The “subject” of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication,
price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
[2] “Non-trivial” excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves
reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site
by members of the public on a subject do not share the site’s imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent,
vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
[3] Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular
book.
[4] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be
someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect
material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people
independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough
that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
[5] This includes both primary and secondary schools.
[6] This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only
independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy,
literature, or science.
[7] Certain print-on-demand book publishers, such as PublishAmerica, claim to be “traditional” advance- and royalty-paying publishers rather than vanity presses. Regardless of the exact definitions, PublishAmerica and similar presses are to be considered
vanity presses for purposes of assessing notability based on the manner works are published through them.
[8] Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for
publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses,
and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward. See university
presses for a partial list of such presses. Note that because a large portion of (en.)Wikipedia articles are written by English
speaking people from English speaking nations, this list currently has an English speaking bias.
[9] A book’s subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer)
people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material.
[10] “catalogue.bl.uk”. catalogue.bl.uk. 1994-11-06. Retrieved 2014-01-04.
[11] “catalog.loc.gov”. catalog.loc.gov. 2013-05-14. Retrieved 2014-01-04.
[12] “litencyc.com”. litencyc.com. Retrieved 2014-01-04.
[13] “Norton Anthology of World Literature: W. W. Norton StudySpace”. Wwnorton.com. Retrieved 2014-01-04.
[14] Time:1:47. “worldcat.org”. worldcat.org. Retrieved 2014-01-04.
Chapter 5
Wikipedia:Notability (events)
"WP:Event" redirects here. For Wikipedia events, see Wikipedia:Meetup.
“WP:N(E)" redirects here. For the Northern Emirates WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Emirates.
Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. The topic of an
article should be notable, or “worthy of notice"; that is, “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention
or to be recorded”.[1] Notable in the sense of being “famous”, or “popular”—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice,
and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged,
deleted or further developed.
5.1 Background
Article deletion discussions have featured a number of contentious debates about events, particularly breaking news events,
that have received intense media coverage. This guideline was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting
the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG (i.e. “a topic is
presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”) and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of
news material). By attempting to clarify the application of these rules to articles about events, this guideline reflects the
community consensus regarding the handling of similarly situated articles.
5.2 Inclusion criteria
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can
cover or the total amount of content. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service.
Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage
will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of
lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).
Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might
seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News
organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias
generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news
editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.
• Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general nota24
5.2. INCLUSION CRITERIA
25
bility guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
• Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact
and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described
below).
• Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions
below provide guidance to assess the event.
• Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news,
“shock” news, stories lacking lasting value such as “water cooler stories,” and viral phenomena) –
whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further
gives them additional enduring significance.
In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration,
geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine. These factors are
described below.
5.2.1
The event
Lasting effects
An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include
effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to
the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects.
Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes,
for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and
possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these
standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable.
It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean
recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
Geographical scope
Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.
An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable.
Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the
sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of
the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article.
5.2.2
The coverage
Depth of coverage
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts
events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek,
or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK).
26
CHAPTER 5. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (EVENTS)
Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting.[2] Some
editors consider narrative news reports to be primary sources rather than secondary sources.
Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely
reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of
such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally.
Duration of coverage
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability
is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of
news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during
or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.
However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether
an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.
If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication
of lasting significance.
Diversity of sources
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging
reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are
under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.
Wikipedia’s general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a
topic, not just multiple references from a single source.[3] A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel
would not be sufficient basis for an article.
Media channels under common control or influence are usually counted as one local or national outlet and a single instance
of coverage when they report a matter, even if they have several regional or national outlets. Similarly, where a single story
or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information
on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ...”), this should only be counted as a single
source for the purpose of determining notability (see Wikipedia:Bombardment). Derivative reports and reports under
common control cannot be used to verify each other, nor does mere repetition necessarily show the kind of effort that is
good evidence of a significant matter.
5.3 Other circumstances
5.3.1
Routine coverage
Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not
sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are
also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other
items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such
as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Runof-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially
true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently
appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts (“And finally” stories).
5.4. BREAKING NEWS
27
Low-impact local events with light media coverage, even if that coverage is from multiple sources, perspectives, and over
a period to time, may still be deleted per WP:ROUTINE. The deletion of a A Wikipedia article about a local crime
confirmed this view.
5.3.2
Sensationalism
See also: WP:NOTSCANDAL
Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking
inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or
gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead
to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting.
Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing
notability.
5.3.3
Criminal acts
See also: WP:CRIME
Articles about criminal acts,[5] particularly those that fall within the category of “breaking news”, are frequently the subject
of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided
such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.
The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been
caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and
to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway
bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.
5.3.4
People notable for only one event
Main pages: WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E
People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is
notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.
5.4 Breaking news
Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Breaking news
See also: Category:Current events and Portal:Current events
If an event is still being widely covered in the press, editors may place the {{currentevent}} template on it to inform
readers of the changing nature of the article.
5.4.1
Don't rush to create articles
It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early
coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article
28
CHAPTER 5. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (EVENTS)
on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is
independently notable.
Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent
event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is
certain. For example, June 22, 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred.
The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown.
Anticipation of notability may be mistaken. Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly
become only a footnote. For example, it was reported in January 2009 that a man was planning to travel to Washington
to assassinate George W. Bush. It was reported several days later that he had no such plans and this event was shown
to be nothing more than a routine arrest. However, articles about widely reported major unexpected or unprecedented
events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto or the Death of Michael Jackson
will almost certainly gain consensus to be kept even when created on the same day as the event occurred.
5.4.2
Don't rush to delete articles
Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion.
As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing
with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a
deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to
delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy,
for example, by rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event. Other alternatives to
deletion while the story develops are userfying or incubating the article in draftspace.
5.4.3
Wikinews
Main page: Wikipedia:Wikinews
Editors are encouraged to write about breaking news events in Wikinews instead of in Wikipedia.
Moving a page to Wikinews is not possible as this would re-license it under the CC-BY license, which is incompatible
with CC-BY-SA, but the content could be reworked from the original sources for Wikinews with a soft redirect from
Wikipedia. However, conversely, Wikinews content can be freely incorporated into Wikipedia.
5.5 Alternatives to deletion
Main page: WP:ATD
If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization,
or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging
content. Care should be taken not to give the event undue weight or violate our policy on biographies of living persons.
If there is no suitable target for merging, a solution may be to rework the article to widen its context beyond a single event.
5.6 See also
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy
• Category:Events, a category which may be a guide to the kind of articles about events considered acceptable by the
community
5.7. NOTES
29
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It’s in the news
• User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS
• Wikipedia:Big events make key participants notable
• Wikipedia:Future event
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Wikipedia:News coverage does not decrease notability
• Wikipedia:News articles
• Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers
• Wikipedia:AIRCRASH, a proposal for notability of aircraft disasters.
• Wikipedia:In the news
• Wikipedia:Let the dust settle
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:"Murder of” articles
5.7 Notes
[1] Encarta dictionary definition Retrieved 13 March 2008
[2] Jaeho Cho; Michael P. Boyle, Heejo Keum, Mark D. Shevy, Douglas M. Mcleod, Dhavan V. Shah, Zhongdang Pan (September
2003). “Media, Terrorism, and Emotionality: Emotional Differences in Media Content and Public Reactions to the September
11th Terrorist Attacks”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 47.
[3] From WP:GNG: “Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader
topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals
simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works,
especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several
journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.”
[4] Harvey Molotch; Marilyn Lester (February 1974). “News as Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic Use of Routine Events,
Accidents, and Scandals”. American Sociological Review 39: 101–112.
[5] A “criminal act” includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the
relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority.
Chapter 6
Wikipedia:Notability (films)
“WP:NF” redirects here. For Wikipedia’s policy regarding non-free media, see Wikipedia:Non-free content.
"WP:MOVIE" redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Films.
The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article.
For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow.
This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film and also takes into
consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone
lists for film.
6.1 General principles
Main article: Wikipedia:General notability guideline
The general notability guideline states, “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent
of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.” The link to the
main article explains each criterion. For topics related to film, some may not readily meet all the criteria. Other topics
may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article based on consensus. Additional
criteria to evaluate these topics are outlined in the sections below.
6.2 Reliable sources
Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
One of the general notability guideline’s criteria is that coverage should come from reliable sources that are independent
of the subject. This section discusses a source’s independence and reliability.
• Independence: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not
directly associated with the topic. Authors should not include members of the production, and publishers should
not include the studio or companies working with it on the production and release. The kinds of sources that are
considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals. Books
that discuss a film in a larger context or among other films are also potential sources; see this section’s last paragraph
regarding the amount of coverage in a source. Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the
production, are not considered independent.
30
6.3. OTHER EVIDENCE OF NOTABILITY
31
• Reliability: The content guideline to identify reliable sources says, “Reliable sources may be published materials
with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.”
Sources that have published materials in print (such as newspapers and other periodicals) are reliable if their publication process is considered reliable. If these sources also publish materials online, then it is usually fair to assume
that these materials have a similar publication process (see WP:NEWSBLOG). If sources publish materials only
online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully.
To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without
critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide,
or the Internet Movie Database.[1]
6.3 Other evidence of notability
A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always
possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when
supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
1. The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
• Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film’s initial release.
• The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such
a poll was conducted at least five years after the film’s release.[2]
• The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
• The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
5. The film is “taught” as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles
about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film
meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should
have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film.
Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article’s
ability to attest to a film’s notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are:
1. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes
significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as “The only cel-animated feature
film ever made in Thailand” (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)[5]
2. The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a
notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
• An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the
biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.
3. The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was
produced by that country’s equivalent of a “major film studio.” Articles on such a film should assert that the film in
question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to
support this, in any language, it should be cited.[6]
32
CHAPTER 6. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (FILMS)
6.4 Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films
Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films, Wikipedia:Planned films and WP:FUTURE
Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their
own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended
filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be
immune to setbacks—there is no “sure thing” production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the
film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of
principal photography after shooting has begun.
In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process,
meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and
music have commenced.[7]
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should
generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films
produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their
failure was notable per the guidelines.
6.5 Resources
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources
When seeking out references to establish the notability of a film, and to provide the necessary information for a thorough
article of high quality, consider some of these resources:
1. A film’s entry in the The Internet Movie Database, or similar databases, can provide valuable information including
links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film’s
notability, however.
2. Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.
6.6 See also
• Wikipedia:Notability (media)
• Notability (Actors)
6.7 Notes
[1] Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable
subject. Similar cases of publications where mention does not establish notability may include: reviews that are part of a
comprehensive review of ALL films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual
entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not
established their own notability as critics.
[2] Examples would include the Sight and Sound Poll, AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movies, Time Out Centenary of Cinema, 1999 Village
Voice Critics Poll, Positif’s poll, etc.
6.8. RELEVANT DEBATES
33
[3] This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures
that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it’s not
to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included.
Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected to fit our standard as well.
[4] See The United States National Film Registry for one example. Any nation with a comparable archive would equally meet our
standards.
[5] This should not be too widely construed, as any film could claim a unique accomplishment such as “Only film where seven
women in an elevator carry yellow handbags.”
[6] This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries
which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and
whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia. In this case “major film producing
country” can be roughly approximated as any country producing 20 or more films in a year, according to the report by UNESCO.
Defining a “major studio” is highly dependent on the country in question.
[7] Common steps in the animated film pre-production process are usually geared towards pitching the idea of the film by previewing
the final product (for instance, storyboards, scratch voice-over tracks, and rough animations also known as “reels”), and such
events do not fulfill the requirements of this guideline. Instead, this guideline attempts to ensure that the film has been greenlighted and is currently in production, as evidenced by activities analogous to live-action filming, such as recording of final
voice-over tracks by credited voice actors, recording of final music and foley sound effects, and drawing/rendering of final
animation frames.
6.8 Relevant debates
• Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#Film Notability, and Notability in general (user archived here)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Please lend your voice to notability guideline discussions.21
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film
Chapter 7
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)
Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Per Wikipedia’s
Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia’s General
notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical
features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.
This guideline summarizes the existing overall consensus for geographical feature notability and provides guidance on
inclusion of information about geographic features into Wikipedia.
7.1 Scope
For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth,
whether natural or artificial.
This guideline does not apply to geographical features in fictional works or to the features of other astronomical objects.
Micronations are not covered by this guideline and are subject to the general notability guideline, even if they are
geography-based.
7.2 Sources
This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because
these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the
requirement of verifiability.
On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability.
Unreliable sources such as Facebook and most blogs or YouTube videos should be avoided when establishing the verifiability or notability of a geographical feature.
7.3 Geographic regions, areas and places
• Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. Even
abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that
census tracts are usually not considered notable.
• Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG.
Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial
34
7.4. BUILDINGS AND OBJECTS
35
neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage
in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated
place or administrative subdivision that contains it.
• Disputed regions are generally considered case-by-case. Their notability for Wikipedia is independent of the
validity of their claims. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to merge these articles to ones on a broader conflict
or political movement, or to merge articles on multiple disputed names for the same region into one article.
• Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to
exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered
to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed
using known sources, information on the feature should be included in a more general article on local geography.
For example, a river island with no information available except the name and the location should probably be
described in the article on the river.
7.4 Buildings and objects
Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be
notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic
notability.
• Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of
any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available
are presumed to be notable.
• Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party
sources to establish notability.
• Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia’s
GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature
that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans.
7.5 Roadways
International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways
are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland’s regional roads), local roads and
motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published
secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject.
7.6 No inherited notability
Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people,
or events.
7.7 See also
• Common AfD outcomes – Geography and astronomy articles – an essay
36
CHAPTER 7. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents – listings of AfD outcomes from WikiProject U.S. Roads
• Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability – an essay about the notability of U.S. roads
• Wikipedia:Notability (highways) – an essay
• Wikipedia:Places of local interest – an essay
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) – a naming convention
• Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) – a guideline for celestial bodies
• Wikipedia:Notability – a guideline for topic notability
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – a policy
Chapter 8
Wikipedia:Notability (music)
"WP:MUS", "WP:MUSIC" and "WP:BAND" redirect here. You may have been looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music), Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs or Wikipedia:
WikiProject Museums. For instructions on how to create and include Ogg Theora and Vorbis files on Wikipedia, see
Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files.
This page provides a guideline of how editors should apply the concept of notability regarding topics related to music,
including artists, bands, albums, and songs.
Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article on
an artist or band that does not indicate that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted
under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full
Proposed deletion or Articles for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia.
Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia’s musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical
topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any
of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that
an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an
article that is listed at articles for deletion.
In order to meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that
the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band’s importance on a talk page or
AfD page – the article itself must document notability.
See also Wikipedia:Notability (people) for notability guidelines for biography articles in general.
8.1 Criteria for musicians and ensembles
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist,
etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not selfpublished, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles,
online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
• Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves,
and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers’ advertising.[note 3]
• Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release
information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
37
38
CHAPTER 8. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (MUSIC)
• Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
2. Has had a single or album on any country’s national music chart.
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national
concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an
independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are
independently notable).
6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a
reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted
appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene
of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis
award.
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance
in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it
is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E
and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band’s article, not given individual articles, unless they have
demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who
are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have
demonstrated that they are independently notable.
8.2 Criteria for composers and lyricists
For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:Composers.
For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre
that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above
criteria.
4. Has written a composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music
competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
8.3. OTHERS
39
6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.
Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should
be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may
not be possible.
8.3 Others
For composers and performers outside mass media traditions:
1. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
2. Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
3. Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a
notable genre.
5. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
8.4 Recordings
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines § Notability of recordings
All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant
coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate
when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should
be merged to into the artist’s article or discography.
Specific to recordings,
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not selfpublished, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles,
online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
• Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers’ advertising.
• Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
2. The single or album has appeared on any country’s national music chart.
3. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.
4. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or
Grammis award.
5. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance
in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it
is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E
and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
6. The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
7. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
40
8.4.1
Albums
An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an
album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.
Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the
general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into
the artist’s main article or discography article, space permitting.
8.4.2
Singles
See also: § Songs
A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single
is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.
8.4.3
Unreleased material
Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant
independent coverage in reliable sources.
In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced
information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004.
However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, an album should
not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist
or their record label.
Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable
sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release.
For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album” and consists solely of blog or fan forum
speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and
should be discussed only in the artist’s article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it.
8.5 Songs
Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose
sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles,
other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications
where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Coverage of
a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context
of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent
article about the song should not be created.
Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed
article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the
aforementioned criteria.
1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
8.6. CONCERT TOURS
41
Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions.
Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position.
• Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such
as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
• Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and
Wikibooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content.
8.6 Concert tours
Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage
might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources
which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently
referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist’s page rather than creating a dedicated article.
A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable. Michael Jackson's 1988
Bad World Tour is an example of a notable concert tour.
8.7 Resources
Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To find ownership
information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are
invaluable. When looking in depth, a Google book search may turn something up. For material that has captured the
attention of academics, a search on Google scholar may work.
An experienced editor also provides a guide on ensuring that articles meet criteria.
8.8 If the subject is not notable
Further information: Wikipedia:Notability § Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this
guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described
above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject.
Wikipedia’s goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say
about themselves.
However, information about such subjects may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions
are met. Material about a musician, group, or work that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by
adding it into relevant articles if it:
• has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article;
• avoids self-promotion; and
• includes information that can be verified through independent sources.
For example, material about individual members of a musical group are normally merged into larger articles about the
group. Songs may be described in a discography or one of the many lists of songs. Appropriate redirects from the subject’s
name and entries in disambiguation pages should be created to help readers find such information.
42
8.9 Notes
someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works. (See Wikipedia:Self published sources
for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity
material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician,
ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The
rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher,
social networking site or music networking site, etc., does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at
large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
[2] What constitutes a “published work” is deliberately broad.
[3] For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official
company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an “endorsement interview” with the artist.
[4] This criterion has been disputed in the past and has been reworded numerous times as a result. Past significant discussions: 1,
2.
[5] Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent, but, for example, being members of the chorus
(not prominent) in two Broadway musicals (dozens of people involved) usually wouldn't be enough.
NSONG notes
[1] The “subject” of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its
publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.
[2] “Non-trivial” excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves
reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way
affiliated with any third party source.
someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or
of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and
published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
Chapter 9
Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)
"WP:NUMBER" redirects here. For the Number Wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. For the style guide
on formatting numbers, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
These guidelines on the notability of numbers address notability of individual numbers, kinds of numbers and lists of
numbers.
In the case of mathematical classifications of numbers, the relevant criteria are whether professional mathematicians study
the classification and whether amateur mathematicians are interested by it. Therefore, the first question to ask is:
• Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic, or chapters in a book?
This is the question that will apply, only slightly reworded, to each of the kinds of articles about numbers we will consider.
More specific questions will be added for specific article types, though there will of course be some overlap.
Also note that looking something up in a book or a database written by someone else is not original research, which is not
allowed in Wikipedia.
9.1 Notability of kinds of numbers
Examples Complex numbers. Transcendental numbers containing only 3s and 7s in their hexadecimal representations.
The questions to ask are:
1. Have professional mathematicians published papers on this kind of number, or chapters in a book, or an entire
book about this kind of number?
2. Do MathWorld or PlanetMath have articles on this kind of number?
3. Is there at least one commonly accepted name for this kind of number?
An affirmative answer to these three questions indicates that this kind of number is notable enough for Wikipedia to have
an article about it.
In some cases, notability guidelines for sequences of numbers might be more applicable, especially when it is straightforward to put the numbers in some kind order, such as ascending order.
43
44
CHAPTER 9. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (NUMBERS)
Disposition of examples There exists at least one book titled Complex Numbers, one by Walter Ledermann,
and several others with titles of the form Complex Numbers and somethingelse, such as Estermann’s Complex
Numbers and Functions. Both PlanetMath and MathWorld have articles on complex numbers. The name
“complex number” has been almost universally accepted since mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss coined
it. Hence, complex numbers are notable enough for Wikipedia.
On the other hand, transcendental numbers containing only 3s and 7s in their hexadecimal representations
lack a commonly accepted name, in part because the description is so long, but mainly because hardly anyone,
professional or amateur, has cared to study these numbers, much less publish anything about them.
9.2 Notability of sequences of numbers
Examples The Mian–Chowla sequence. The sequence of numbers n such that 5n5 + 1 is prime.
1. Have professional mathematicians published papers about this sequence, or chapters in a book, or an entire book
about this sequence?
2. Do MathWorld and PlanetMath have articles about this sequence?
3. Is this sequence listed in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?
4. Is there at least one commonly accepted name for this sequence?
An affirmative answer to these four questions indicates that this sequence is notable for Wikipedia to have an article about
it. Although the OEIS is restricted to integers in the values its table may hold, there are some ways around this restriction.
For sequences of rational numbers, the OEIS might split off the one sequence of rational numbers into two sequences,
one of numerators and another one of denominators. If the third question gets a negative response, someone arguing the
notability of the sequence needs to show that there is no way the OEIS would include this sequence as a result of its rules,
and not as a comment on the non-notability of the sequence.
Disposition of examples The mathematicians Mian and Chowla published a paper in Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
India A14 about the sequence 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 21, 31, 45, ... Both Mathworld and PlanetMath have articles
about this sequence. The sequence is listed in the OEIS as A005282. The modesty of the mathematicians
aside, this sequence is universally known as the “Mian–Chowla sequence”. Thus, the Mian–Chowla sequence
is notable enough for Wikipedia.
The sequence of numbers n such that 5n5 + 1 is prime is in the OEIS ( A117132), but it has the keyword
“less”. Neither PlanetMath nor MathWorld have articles about this sequence.
9.3 Notability of specific individual numbers
9.3.1
Integers
Examples 42 and 9870123.
1. Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?
2. Does this number have obvious cultural significance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number)?
3. Is it listed in a book such as David Wells’s Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or on Erich Friedman’s
“What’s Special About This Number” webpage?
9.4. NOTABILITY OF LISTS OF NUMBERS AND CATEGORIES
45
In assessing how interesting the mathematical property of a particular integer might be, the essay WP:1729 could be
a useful tool. A property that is shared by a large proportion of numbers, such as being a composite number, is not
interesting. For the sake of completeness, however, it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own
article even if it is not as interesting as the other. This avoids having, say, a gap for 38.
Disposition of examples 42 is the product of the first three terms of Sylvester’s sequence, it is the sum of
the first eleven totients and it is a Catalan number, to name just three. As the ultimate answer in Douglas
Adams’s classic Hitchhiker’s trilogy, the number 42 is invested with great cultural significance. 42 appears in
both Wells’s book and Friedman’s page. Thus, 42 is notable enough for Wikipedia.
9870123, on the other hand, is listed neither in Wells’s book nor on Friedman’s page.
Range sections
Several articles for round numbers contain a “range section”. For example, 40000 (number) has a section Selected
numbers, in this case for numbers in the range 40001–49999. Such sections also list integers in the given range that are
not sufficiently notable to warrant their own, separate article, but nevertheless have a property that is interesting enough
to mention it there. In such cases, it makes sense to make the page for the non-notable number a redirect to the article
with range section in which it is treated. For example, 40585 is a factorion, and is mentioned as such in the article 40000
(number); accordingly, the page 40585 (number) redirects to the article 40000 (number).
9.3.2
Irrational numbers
Examples The square root of 2, (sin 1)2 .
1. Is there a book about this irrational number, or at least a great number of papers using this number?
2. Are both the decimal expansion and the continued fraction of this number listed in the OEIS?
3. Is this number listed in a book such as Finch’s Mathematical Constants?
4. Is there at least one commonly accepted name for this irrational number?
Disposition of examples The square root of 2 has an entire book by David Flannery devoted to it. Its
continued fraction is A040000 in the OEIS and its decimal expansion is A002193. This number is listed in
Finch’s book, and it is sometimes called “Pythagoras’ constant,” though “square root of two” is considered
manageable enough. Thus, the square root of 2 is notable enough for Wikipedia.
(sin 1)2 is listed in the OEIS but not in Finch’s book, nor is there a simpler name for it than its algebraic
expression.
Decimal expansion redirects
Only the most famous irrational numbers merit redirects from partial decimal expansions. For example, 3.14 and 2.71828.
Any others, the search engine ought to catch the number written in the appropriate page and return that as a result. To
facilitate this searching, then, it is recommended that the number’s decimal expansion be written out in text and not as a
graphic in the page.
9.4 Notability of lists of numbers and categories
Besides the list of numbers and the list of prime numbers, any other lists are not considered to be narrowly enough
construed to be useful. The creation of categories must not be taken lightly: one must be able to demonstrate that the
category would be populated by a significant amount of articles on notable topics.
46
CHAPTER 9. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (NUMBERS)
9.5 Rationale
The subset of numbers anyone could look up in Wikipedia is very small. And if we strike out those numbers that will only
be looked up only out of curiosity on whether or not Wikipedia has an article about that number, we're left with an even
smaller subset. That subset, give or take a few members, is exactly the same subset WP:NUM calls for. For example,
many people will look up forty-two to genuinely learn more about it, while someone would look up the “square root of
40887” only to see if Wikipedia has an article about it and nothing else. No one would be able to specifically look up an
integer at some inconvenient distance between 15 googolplexes and 16 googolplexes.
9.6 See also
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Interesting number paradox
• Wikipedia:Evaluating how interesting an integer’s mathematical property is
Some precedents:
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/31999998
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3.14
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leviathan number
Chapter 10
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and
companies)
"WP:ORG" and "WP:COMPANY" redirect here. You may have been looking for WikiProject Organizations or WikiProject
Companies.
This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is
a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization or product. The scope of this guideline
covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may
be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are
covered by WP:MUSIC.
Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial
and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest
groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc.
This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors,
and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).
10.1 Decisions based on verifiable evidence
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability § Notability requires verifiable evidence
Notable means “worthy of being noted” or “attracting notice.” Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization
is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the
notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources
have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would
improve the article to add them).
10.1.1
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter
what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from
independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable
or merely because it exists (see “If it’s not notable”, below). “Notability” is not synonymous with “fame” or “importance.”
No matter how “important” editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article
in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.
47
48
CHAPTER 10. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES)
When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or
demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.
Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources
that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals
can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.
10.1.2
Further information: WP:PRODUCT
An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not
notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in
reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant
does not “inherit” notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not “inherit”
notability from its member.
This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not
“inherit” notability due to their membership. A corporation may be notable, but its subsidiaries do not “inherit” notability
from being owned by the corporation.
10.2 Primary criteria
See also: WP:PSTS and Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the
subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A
single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
10.2.1
Depth of coverage
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then
multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not
sufficient to establish notability.
Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and
makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this
criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:
• sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
• the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
• inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[2]
• the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
• routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
• brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
• simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
• routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
10.2. PRIMARY CRITERIA
49
• routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
• routine restaurant reviews,
• quotations from an organization’s personnel as story sources, or
• passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
10.2.2
Audience
The source’s audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least
regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of
limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is
necessary.
10.2.3
Independence of sources
A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor)
have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published
non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.
Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper
articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3] except
for the following:
• press releases, press kits, or similar works;
• self-published materials;
• any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;
• advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization;
• corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization;
• patents, whether pending or granted;[4]
• any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly;
• other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by
the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.
Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article. Qualifying published
works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service.
Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article’s
content. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject
of the article itself is the source of the material.
10.2.4
Illegal conduct
There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have
engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. Sources which primarily discuss allegations
of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization’s notability per this guideline. However, keep in
mind that the organization may still be notable under separate guidelines (e.g., WP:CRIME).
50
10.3 Special note: advertising and promotion
Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in
order:
1. Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV
2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article
3. Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an
article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for
speedy deletion instead.
10.4 Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations
The following sections discuss alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. No organization is
considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people
outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability.
Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements
1. these alternate criteria,
2. the primary criteria for organizations, or
3. the general notability guideline
and they comply with the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially with regards to avoiding indiscriminate
inclusion of information.
10.4.1
Non-commercial organizations
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[1] reliable sources that are independent of the organization.
Additional considerations are:
• Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or
even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the
organization’s local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to
an article on the organization’s local area instead.
• Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these
factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.
• Caveat - Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale. The fact that an
organization has branches in multiple countries does not necessarily mean that its activities are truly international.
Example: a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, world wide, is not “international
in scale” simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live.
10.4. ALTERNATE CRITERIA FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS
51
Local units of larger organizations
• As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered
notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources
that extend beyond the chapter’s local area.
• In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article
may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. If the parent
article grows to the point where information needs to be split off to a new article, remember that when you split off
an article about a local chapter, the local chapter itself must comply with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, without
reference to the notability of the parent organization. Take care not to split off a section that would be considered
non-notable on its own. Splitting should occur as a top-down process. See {{splitsection}}.
• Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other subunits of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters
and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. See Wikipedia:Merging.
• Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main
article on the organization. If an embedded list becomes too large for the parent article, consideration may be given
to splitting out as a stand-alone list only if there are reliable sources dealing with the list as a topic, as with Baird’s
Manual of American College Fraternities supporting List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. If an embedded
list is too large, but is not notable enough for a stand-alone list, then consider trimming.
10.4.2
Schools
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools
that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability
guideline, or both.
10.4.3
Commercial organizations
Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they
are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Wikipedia editors should
not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company. Please see
WP:ADVERT.
Publicly traded corporations
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are
inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion
discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article
authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that
others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded
company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
Chains and franchises
Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance,
a local McDonald’s. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that is not true for the
52
chain in general, Wikipedia should not have articles on such individual stores. In rare cases, an individual location will
have architectural peculiarities that makes it notable, such as the Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina);
however, a series of articles on every single Wal-Mart in China would not be informative. An exception can be made if a
major event occurred at a local store; however, this would most likely be created under an article name that describes the
event, not the location (see San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre for an example).
10.4.4
Products and services
See also: Wikipedia:Notability § Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company
itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy.
When discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the
products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into
a separate article following WP:Summary style. If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article,
the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely.
Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space
Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion.
If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope
such as the company’s article or propose it for deletion.
Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its
own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited
as a result.
10.5 If it’s not notable
Further information: WP:FAILN
Although an organization that fails to meet the criteria of this guideline should not have a separate article, information
about the organization may nevertheless be included in other ways in Wikipedia provided that certain conditions are met.
Content about the organization can be added into relevant articles if it:
• only includes information that can be verified through independent sources.
For organizations local to a city, town, or county, content conforming to the above criteria may be added to articles for
that locale. For example, a business that is significant to the history or economy of a small town might be described in
the History or Economy section of the small town.
10.6 See also
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)
• Wikipedia:Autobiography (for companies that are creating articles about themselves)
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Business
10.7. NOTES
53
• WP:LISTCOMPANY, style guideline for lists of companies
Essays:
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not LinkedIn
• Wikipedia:Places of local interest
• Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, on the non-notability of run-of-the-mill organizations and routine media coverage
• Wikipedia:Businesses with a single location, and what to be aware of when creating an article on one
• Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique, on the notability provided by professional and reliable critical reviews
• WP:MILUNIT, WikiProject Military History essay on notability of units and formations
• WP:B2B, on notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses
10.7 Notes
[1] “Source” on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability
purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be “multiple”. A story from a single news organization (such as AP)
reprinted in multiple newspapers (say, in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel) is still one
source (one newspaper article). If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same
subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event
or “story”. A series of articles by the same journalist is still treated as one source (one person). The appearance of different
articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher).
[2] Inclusion in “best of”, “top 100”, and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as
the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. Inclusion in a notable list counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt
the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject.
[3] Examples:
• Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about
it.
• The Oxford Union satisfies this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it.
[4] Patents are written and published solely at the direction of the inventor or organization that the inventor assigned the patent to.
Their contents are not verified to be accurate by the patent offices or any other independent agency. See Wikipedia:Reliable
source examples#Are patents reliable sources?.
Chapter 11
Wikipedia:Notability (people)
WP:BIO redirects here. You may have been looking for Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies.
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the
person who is the topic of a biographical article should be “worthy of notice”[1] or “note”[2] – that is, “remarkable”[2] or
“significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”[1] within Wikipedia as a written account
of that person’s life. “Notable” in the sense of being “famous” or “popular” – although not irrelevant – is secondary.
This notability guideline for biographies[3] reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established
practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. For advice about how to write biographical articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:
Biographies of living persons.
The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about the person, then “John Doe” would be an appropriate title. If, however, there is only enough information about one notable
event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident.
Sometimes when a famous person dies, there is enough information for an article about their death, such as Death of
Michael Jackson or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. If a notable person’s main article is too long to contain all of their
works, then a separate page can be created for that information, such as George Orwell bibliography. If the person was
the subject of a notable murder, then a title such as Murder of Kitty Genovese is appropriate.
11.1 Basic criteria
See also: Wikipedia:General notability guideline
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that
are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]
• If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined
to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish
notability.[7]
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability
of a subject.
People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may
still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or
such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.
54
11.2. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA
55
11.2 Additional criteria
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive
proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be
included.
A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find
these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for
example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion.
11.2.1
Any biography
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her
specific field.[8]
11.2.2
Academics
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are
notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
11.2.3
Creative professionals
"WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see WP:OWN.
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body
of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of
multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person’s work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a
significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections
of several notable galleries or museums.
11.2.4
Crime victims and perpetrators
See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts
"WP:CRIME" redirects here. For the Crime WikiProject, see WP:WikiProject Crime.
A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate
Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that
person.
56
CHAPTER 11. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (PEOPLE)
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by
considerations of article size.
Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia
article only if one of the following applies:
For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime
1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented
historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources
that devote significant attention to the individual’s role.[9]
For perpetrators
1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or
celebrities.[10]
2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—
such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage
of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes
significant attention to the individual’s role.[11]
• Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court
of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no
conviction is yet secured.
11.2.5
Entertainers
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant “cult” following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
• See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
Pornographic actors and models
The following criteria should be brought up in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects
who are or have been involved in the pornography industry.
1. Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded
from consideration.
2. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred
in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN
Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
3. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
11.2.6
Military personnel
For WikiProject Military History guidance, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide.
11.3. INVALID CRITERIA
11.2.7
57
Politicians
Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes § Politicians
1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and
members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have
been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability,
although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of “significant coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article”.
11.2.8
Sports personalities
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)
11.3 Invalid criteria
• That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a
standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability.
However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen
Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn
Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles.
• Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of
photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings,[13] and
for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. For
example, while the Alexa Toolbar is useful, its utility is limited by its userbase (numbers and willingness) and by
data scarcity (less data tends to raise error margins). When using a search engine to help establish the notability of
a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.
11.4 Failing all criteria
If no criterion can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not
worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then three deletion procedures can be considered:[14]
• If speedy deletion criterion A7 applies, use the {{db-person}} tag to request speedy deletion.
• For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, use the
{{subst:prod}} tag. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects (see Wikipedia: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 its merits will be discussed for 7 days.
58
11.5 Special cases
11.5.1
Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria
If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one
or more of the additional criteria:
• Merge the article into a broader article providing context.
• Place a {{Mergeto}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged.
• If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request
the article be written.
11.5.2
Failure to explain the subject’s notability
If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[15] try to improve it by:
• Adding the {{cleanup-biography}} template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc.
• Rewriting it yourself
• Asking the article’s editor(s) for advice.
11.5.3
Insufficient sources
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:
• Look for sources yourself
• Ask the article’s editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.
• Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors.
• If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors
knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
11.6 People notable for only one event
See also: WP:NOT § NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP2E, WP:WI1E and WP:EVENT
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written
about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance
of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual’s role within it should be considered. The general rule
in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual’s role
grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16]
If the event is highly significant, and the individual’s role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage
of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual’s role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a
redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney
11.7. LISTS OF PEOPLE
59
King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own
articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate
to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the
article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated
with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a
person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such
cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies,
especially of living people.
It is important to remember that “notable” is not a synonym for “famous”. Someone may have become famous due to one
event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Similarly, a person may be generally famous, but notable
for only a single event.
11.7 Lists of people
See also: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Lists of people, Wikipedia:ALMAMATER and Wikipedia:Namechecking
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the
notability criteria above. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the
entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the
article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any
such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.
For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not
intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to
be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians
by alma mater. On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can
contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable.
Note that the guidance in this section is particularly applicable to people but applies to lists in general, not only lists of
people.
11.8 Family
Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people
that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. See also Invalid
criteria.
11.9 Articles on Wikipedians
Some Wikipedia editors have articles about themselves (see Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles); however, their status
as Wikipedian editors by itself has no effect on their notability, regardless of whether they edited Wikipedia before or
after their articles were created. (The conflict of interest guideline still has bearing on their editing of articles about
themselves.) All articles should be judged solely by applicable content and inclusion guidelines and policies, such as this
guideline, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
60
11.10 See also
• Wikipedia:Namechecking (essay)
• Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
• Dealing with articles about the dead
• Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability (essay giving examples of the type of diplomats likely to meet notability guidelines)
• Wikipedia:What is one event (essay)
• Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual (essay)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide#People (essay giving examples of the types of persons related
to the Catholic Church likely to meet notability guidelines)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People (essay giving examples of the types of persons
related to military servicemember likely to meet notability guidelines)
• Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein (essay)
• Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (essay)
• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (a WikiProject focused on “Wikipedia articles that are perceived as actually
being notable that are going through Articles for deletion (AfD)")
11.11 Notes
[1] “Notable”. Encarta. Archived from the original by Internet Archive.
[2] American Heritage Dictionary definition Retrieved 17 January 2015
[3] While this guideline also pertains to small groups of closely related people such as families, co-authors, and co-inventors, it does
not cover groups of unrelated people, which are covered by the notability guideline for organizations and companies.
[5] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the
notability of a subject. “Intellectual independence” requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that
the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable).
For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but
multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person
contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution
does not.
[6] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether
people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published
non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis
Who’s Who) do not prove notability.
[7] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple
directory entry or a mention in passing (“John Smith at Big Company said...” or “Mary Jones was hired by My University”)
that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person’s life
in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as
Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they
are, like many wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards
of inclusion. In addition, in cases like the Internet Movie Database, inclusion is routine for people in the associated domain and
can therefore especially not be taken as evidence of notability.
11.11. NOTES
61
[8] Generally, a person who is “part of the enduring historical record” will have been written about, in depth, independently in
multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received “significant press coverage” has been written
about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines
has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or
TV personality who has “an independent biography” has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
[9] Example: Matthew Shepard.
[10] Example: John Hinckley Jr..
[11] Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
[12] This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers
and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this
criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will
be complete regardless.
[13] Adrian Degus (2014-02-19). “SEO: Linking Up in 2014”. XBIZ. Retrieved 26 February 2014. Since the early days of our
industry we have relied on a standard set of methods to rank our sites for popular keywords, specifically buying and trading
links. These two methods have always gone against Google’s guidelines, they just didn’t have a reliable way to detect it until
now.
include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in
another manner.
[15] The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable. External arguments via a talk
page or AFD debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid
as the existence of the information on the article page itself.
[16] It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly,
WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies
of low profile individuals.
Chapter 12
Wikipedia:Notability (sports)
"WP:ATHLETE" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games.
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide
reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set
forth below.
If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria
for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in
other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).
Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of
any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors
choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant
guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
12.1 Applicable policies and guidelines
All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles
are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable
editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living
persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles. It is not intended that this guideline should
apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG.
Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General
Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.
Any athletic entertainment event where the results are at least partially predetermined or scripted is not covered by this
page. For participants in such events (e.g. Professional wrestling), see WP:ENTERTAINER. At this time there is no
consensus that Electronic sports participants are covered by the criteria of this guideline.[1]
12.2 Basic criteria
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability
See also: Wikipedia’s basic criteria for the notability of people
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary
62
12.3. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PERSONS
63
sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page
are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia’s basic standards of inclusion if they have,
for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the
Olympics).
• Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient
to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of
inclusion, such as the College Football Data Warehouse.
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability
of a subject.
• Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond
WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage.
12.3 Professional sports persons
12.3.1
American football/Canadian football
American football/Canadian football players and coaches are presumed notable if they
1. Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues:
the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the third American
Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level
professional league.
2. Note: Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable unless they
meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days.
12.3.2
Association football
Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:
1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by
FIFA,[6] (including the Olympics) are notable. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received
significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
2. Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded
as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, a player has appeared in a match if he or she was in the starting
line-up or came on as a substitute. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements
above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.
12.3.3
Athletics/track & field and long-distance running
Athletes who compete in the field of Athletics are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
1. Has competed in the Olympics or senior IAAF World Championships
64
CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)
2. Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics
Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons).
3. Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets,
e.g. IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less prestigious large scale meets, e.g. Asian Games,
and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)
4. Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, Youth World Championships or
World Masters Athletics Championships.
5. Has won their country’s senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in
the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year
6. Has won the elite division of multiple notable* road races (including the same race multiple times) or has established
a history of highly competitive, non-winning performances in many notable races (at least 10 top threes)
7. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters
age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body
8. Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested
or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely
matching imperial distance
9. Has a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list
10. Has been inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame or the Road Runners Club of America Hall of
Fame.
To non-athletes associated with the sport (or athletes whose main claim to notability is non-athletic activity) the following
criteria of notability apply:
1. Coaches that have coached many notable athletes, including at least one (non-relay) Olympic medalist, World
champion or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes’ notable accomplishments.
2. Coaches that have been the official head coach of an Olympic track and field team for a country with multiple
medalists.
3. Coaches that introduced a notable technique or training method, and is widely credited as the originator.
4. Clubs that have received major international coverage for its successes and has a résumé composed of many successful Olympians over a long period of time (e.g. Irish American Athletic Club). If a club’s success is mainly due
to one coach, then only the coach is notable.
*The notability of a road race is determined by meeting any one of the following criteria
1. It has an international elite (as defined by the IAAF standards for that year) field of at least 5 different nationalities.
2. It receives broadcast or cable television coverage beyond the local market (if coverage is through the internet, the
site must be independent of the sport, for example Universal Sports).
3. It is a directly competitive meeting between several notable performers (at least 5).
The following criteria may also be used to satisfy road race notability, but does not count towards the notability of athletes
who compete in these races
1. It has been the site of exceptional performances or records (bests).
2. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
3. It has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years.
12.3.4
65
Australian rules football
Athletes who compete in Australian rules football are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
1. Has appeared in a match of the Australian Football League.
2. Before 1990, appeared in a match of the Victorian Football League.
3. Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state
football league.
Coaches are presumed notable if they have been the head coach of an Australian Football League team or, before 1990,
a Victorian Football League team.
12.3.5
Badminton
Athletes in Badminton are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
1. Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships,
2. Competed in the quarter finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships
(e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games) in teams or singles or doubles
competitions.
3. Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open,
German Open, Slovak International).
4. Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix.
5. Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the
Olympics.
12.3.6
Baseball
Baseball figures are presumed notable if they
1. Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese
Baseball Hall of Fame.
2. Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon
Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization or have participated in a major international competition (such
as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team.
3. Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional
Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players’ League, Union Association.
4. Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the abovementioned leagues.
5. Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff.
66
Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability.
To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable,
intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable
sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable
sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.[7]
Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria
for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the
article on the franchise’s minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that
such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP.
12.3.7
Basketball
Basketball figures are presumed notable if they
1. Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association,
Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League
(Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women’s National Basketball Association, or
a similar major professional sports league.
2. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft.
3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or
NBA Development League.
12.3.8
Boxing
A boxer is presumed notable if he or she:
1. Has fought for a world title (e.g., super, regular/full, interim) for one of the following current or historical major
sanctioning bodies:
• Men: International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Association (WBA) (and its predecessor the NBA), World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Organization (WBO), or NYSAC
• Women: International Female Boxers Association, International Women’s Boxing Federation,
Women’s International Boxing Association, or Women’s International Boxing Federation
2. Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed
major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO,
BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated
(NABO))
3. Has been ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or Ring magazine.
4. Has fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship
medal winning country (for Men see Medal table (1974 - present), for Women see Medal table (2001 - present)),
or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament.
12.3.9
Cricket
Further information: WP:CRIN
A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she
67
1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire
2. has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005,
as a player or umpire
3. has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above since 2007 as a player or
umpire
12.3.10
Curling
A curler is presumed notable if he or she
1. Has participated in a World Curling Tour sanctioned event.
2. Has participated in a World Curling Federation sanctioned event.
3. Has participated in the Brier, the Tournament of Hearts or received a podium finish for another country’s national
championship, provided that the country has qualified a team into either the preceding or succeeding Olympics.
4. Has participated in an Olympic qualifying event for any country.
5. Has participated in the Canadian Mixed, Junior or Senior championship.
6. Has participated in a provincial or territorial playdown leading to the Brier or Tournament of Hearts.
7. Has participated in a TSN Skins Game or Canada Cup of Curling game.
8. Has received a podium finish at a Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship or the Canadian Masters Curling
Championships.
9. Has participated at the Paralympics.
10. Is a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame.
12.3.11
Cycling
Cyclists are presumed notable if they Elite Men (at least 1): Professional (UCI World Tour);
Rode in a Grand Tour or Monument;
Competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;
Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship);
Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships).
Elite Woman (at least 1): Professional (UCI Women’s team);
Competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;
Won a UCI category race (including Continental and National Championships);
Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship).
Teams are presumed notable if they are
Men’s road: 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd tier (UCI Continental);
UCI team (UCI women’s team, UCI track team, UCI mountain bike team, UCI cyclo-cross team, etc.).
Races are presumed notable if they
Ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2, CDM, JO, CM, GT, CC, CN);
Races at international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship);
Holds significant recognition (e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People’s Choice Classic).
68
12.3.12
Equestrian sport
This section does not encompass notability issues for individuals in rodeo, which is addressed at WP:NRODEO, or horse
racing, which can be satisfied through WP:NHORSERACING.
Equestrians competing at the highest level of international competition are not always “professionals”, some earn money and
some do not, but most have sponsors or receive money to support their activities. Both professionals and non-professionals
have been put in the professional sports category for convenience.
Individual people who are involved in equestrian sport are presumed notable if they
1. Have participated at the Olympic Equestrian Events as a rider or official team coach
2. Have participated at the Paralympics as a rider, driver or official team coach
3. Have participated at the Pan American Games as a rider, driver or official team coach
4. Have participated at the FEI World Equestrian Games (WEG) as a rider, driver or official team coach
5. If prior to a competition becoming part of the combined WEG, placed individually or been on a team that won gold,
silver, or bronze at the Eventing World Championship, Show Jumping World Championships, or Dressage World
Championship, Combined Driving World Championships, Endurance World Championships or World Vaulting
Championships
6. Have won a FEI World Cup competition.
Notability for persons associated with equestrian competition who were not notable as competitors or team coaches as
outlined above:
1. A coach who worked with many competitors considered notable by the criteria above, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World Equestrian Games champion
2. Individual members inducted into a major equestrian-oriented national hall of fame dedicated to sports with
international-level competition, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame.
3. A horse trainer who worked with many horses that (with their riders or drivers) competed in competition considered notable by the criteria above, including winners of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games
championship
4. Heads of national and international federations, e.g. United States Equestrian Federation,Fédération_Equestre_Internationale.
5. A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one
Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor.
12.3.13
Figure skating
Figure skaters competing at the highest level of international competition are not “professional” skaters, but they are also not
amateurs since they do receive money. They are called eligible skaters but have been put in the professional sports category
for convenience.
For notability guideline for all figure skating-related subjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability.
Figure skating figures are presumed notable if they
69
1. Competed at an Olympics or at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships (Competing in a world championship qualifying round does not guarantee notability.)
2. Competed in the free skate at the following ISU Championships: World Junior Figure Skating Championships,
European Figure Skating Championships, Four Continents Figure Skating Championships
3. Won their country’s senior national championships, with the exception of those countries that do not regularly send
multiple skaters to the Olympic Games (consult this Olympic athlete tally to check whether the country qualifies).
4. Competed at a Grand Prix of Figure Skating event (Skate America, Skate Canada International, Trophee Eric
Bompard, Cup of China, Cup of Russia, NHK Trophy, Bofrost Cup on Ice)
5. Medaled at a non-Grand Prix international senior-level event (commonly referred to as “senior B” competitions, as
opposed to “A” competitions, which are the Grand Prixs and ISU championships. See figure skating competitions
for more information and List of figure skating competitions for a list of events. Notable examples of senior Bs are
the Nebelhorn Trophy, the Karl Schäfer Memorial and the Golden Spin of Zagreb.)
Notability for persons associated with skating who were not notable as eligible skaters:
1. A coach or choreographer who has worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or
senior World Champion (e.g. Pam Gregory, and David Wilson)
2. Heads of national and international federations.
3. Individual members of the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame, or a major national figure skating hall of fame, such
as the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame.
12.3.14
Golf
Golf figures are presumed notable if:
1. They have competed in the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Solheim Cup or similar international competition
2. They are enshrined in one of golf’s recognized Halls of Fame (ex: World Golf Hall of Fame)
3. They have won at least one professional golf tournament (ex: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, Champions
Tour)
4. They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (ex: U.S.
Amateur, British Amateur)
5. They have made the cut in one of the major tournaments:
• Men: Masters Tournament, U.S. Open, The Open Championship, PGA Championship
• Women: Current majors — U.S. Women’s Open, Women’s British Open, ANA Inspiration, Women’s
PGA Championship, The Evian Championship; or past majors — du Maurier Classic, Women’s
Western Open, Titleholders Championship
• Senior men: Senior PGA Championship, U.S. Senior Open, Senior Players Championship, Senior
British Open, The Tradition
6. They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year
7. They hold a golf record (ex: lowest score) recognized by the USGA, PGA, LPGA or The R&A
70
12.3.15
Gymnastics
Artistic gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
1. competed at the Summer Olympics or senior World Championships
2. won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition*
3. won their country’s senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country
who qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships
4. won an individual medal at the senior national championships for any country that medaled in the team competition
at the most recent Olympics or World Championships
5. inducted into the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame
Junior gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below (females only)
1. won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: USA, Russia,
China, Romania
2. won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition*
3. won an individual medal at the Youth Olympic Games
Coaches are assumed notable if
1. they have coached many notable athletes, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World champion
2. they have been the official head coach of an Olympic or World Championship team
*An elite international competition is any competition with considerable international WP:GNG coverage between
at least eight notable athletes (examples of such competitions include: Pan American Games, Asian Games,
Commonwealth Games, European Championships, and Pacific Rim Championships).
12.3.16
Horse racing
Notability for people involved in sport horse disciplines other than horse racing are covered at WP:NEQUESTRIAN or
WP:NRODEO
For expanded notability guidelines to assist in applying GNG for all horse racing-related subjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject
Horse racing/Notability.
Not all participants in horse racing are athletic “professionals”, particularly owners and breeders, but due to purse money and profit
motive throughout the sport they are put in the professional sports category for convenience.
Horse racing figures, including horses and/or their human “connections” (horse trainers, jockeys or horse owners and
horse breeders) are presumed to most likely meet WP:GNG for notability if they have accomplished any of the following:
1. Individuals who win a Grade I/Group I stakes race or the equivalent level in their respective nations. (Horses, due
to their relatively short careers, at least once; humans best to have done so more than once)
2. Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in
their respective nations.
71
3. Individuals who have won year-end championship titles, such as an Eclipse Award.
4. Members of a national Racing Hall of Fame.
Notability for horses or persons associated with horse racing who were not competitors or do not meet the criteria above
may be presumed notable if they meet GNG for any of the following:
1. Individual humans who were significant for new advancements or trailblazing achievements. (examples: Andrew
Beyer, Florence Nagle, Diane Crump)
2. Horses that may not have raced to any significant degree (usually due to injury), but had multiple significant progeny,
such as Tapit.
3. Horses who are ranked the leading sire or broodmare for a given year in their respective nations (again, see Tapit)
4. Breeding farms or farm owners that do not race many horses themselves, but have produced or currently stand
horses who became notable winners. (i.e. Adena Springs)
5. Agents, race track announcers (i.e. Larry Collmus), racing journalists (i.e. Steve Haskin), venue owners (i.e. Frank
Stronach) and other business professionals with a significant connection to horse racing.
6. Horses and individuals involved in highly publicized thefts or other crimes, e.g. Shergar, scandals or other nefarious
activities, such as substitution scams, e.g. Fine Cotton.
7. An individual person with a connection to a notable horse is not inherently notable for that reason only, see WP:
BIO1E, though if the individual’s role is a large one, a significant connection to a single notable horse might justify
a spinoff article. (i.e. Eddie Sweat, groom of Secretariat). Conversely, a horse is not presumed notable just because
the owner is famous: Jim Rome owns racehorses, Shared Belief is notable, Gallatin’s Run is probably not.
12.3.17
Ice hockey
Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
2. Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level
of competition extant;
3. Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer,
First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;
4. Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor
league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior
league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
5. Were a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
6. Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or
7. Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame.
For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute “coached” or “managed” for “played” in the player
guidelines. Please see WP:NHOCKEY/LA for a list of leagues at each level maintained by the Ice Hockey
WikiProject.
72
12.3.18
Kickboxing
A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've:
• fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It’s Showtime,
WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA (through 1986), WKA (through 2000)),
• been ranked in the world top 10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a
reliable source, or
• been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.
Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless the person has been the subject
examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local
publications.
12.3.19
Mixed martial arts
Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they
1. Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:
MMATIER); or
2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization
See also: an essay, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability
12.3.20
Motorsports
Motorsport figures are presumed notable if they
1. Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial
compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the
SCCA Spec Miata National Championship isn't.
2. Predate the sharp distinction between professional and amateur (prior to World War II).
3. Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24
Hours of Le Mans).
4. Have owned or been team principal for a team in a major racing series (NASCAR Sprint Cup, Formula One,
IndyCar, A1GP, CART, IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Sprint Cup crew chiefs.
5. Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame.
6. Founded, owned, or managed any notable professional racing series.
7. Designers or engineers who have been covered extensively by the media or motorsports historians.
8. Hold or have held a significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record.
12.3.21
73
Rodeo
Individuals who participate in the sport of Rodeo are presumed notable if they
1. Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian
Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo, or National Finals Rodeo (Australia);
2. Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian
Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, or National Cowgirl
Museum and Hall of Fame.
3. College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLATH and younger rodeo competitors will follow
NHSPHSATH.
12.3.22
Rugby league
A player, or coach of rugby league football is presumed notable if they:
1. Have appeared in at least one match at a Rugby League World Cup tournament, Rugby League Four Nations
tournament, Pacific Cup or Rugby League European Cup, or
2. Have appeared in at least one match between Great Britain, England, Wales, France, New Zealand or Australia
prior to 1995, or
3. Have appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition:
• National Rugby League (see Note 1) , or
• Super League (see Note 1) including Challenge Cup appearances.
Other players and personalities surrounding the game are notable if they meet WP:GNG.
Note 1: or their earlier iterations in the UK, Australia or New Zealand.
12.3.23
Rugby union
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability
A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:
1. a “High Performance Union” at any time(see Note 1) or another test nation during an appearance at the men’s Rugby
World Cup(see Note 2) or,
2. a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
3. a team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, IRB Sevens World Series, Commonwealth Games, Olympics, or
4. a women’s national team in at least the semi-finals of the Women’s Rugby World Cup.(see Note 3)
Note 1: “High Performance Unions” for men are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales.[8] Women do not have
this criterion.
74
Note 2: Non-High Performance Unions nations that have appeared at the World cup are: Georgia (2003, 2007, 2011),
Ivory Coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011), Uruguay (1999
and 2003), and Zimbabwe (1987 and 1991)
Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women’s World cup at the semi-final level are: Australia (2010), Canada (1998,
2002, 2006), England (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), France (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010), New Zealand
(1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), United States (1991, 1994, 1998), and Wales (1994).
The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs
for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in
a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy
one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.
12.3.24
Sumo
Sumo wrestlers are presumed notable if they have been ranked in either the top makuuchi division or second highest juryo
division. Wrestlers who have only appeared in lower divisions are generally not notable as they have not reached fully
professional status.
12.3.25
Tennis
Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they
1. Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category
2. Have competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team
Cup
3. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:
• Grand slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open)
• Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000,
ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250)
• Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour
Championships)
4. Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments
5. Have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women’s $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments. Until 2007, the notability
threshold shall be winning a $25,000 tournament based on the lowest payout for a men’s challenger tournament in
the same year.
6. Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA
This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won
at least a junior Grand slam title, have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings or can be shown to meet the
wider requirements of WP:GNG.
More detailed tennis notability information can be found at WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines.
12.3.26
Triathlon
Triathletes are presumed notable if they
1. Have competed in Triathlon at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games.
12.4. AMATEUR SPORTS PERSONS
75
2. Have had a top ten finish in the final ITU World Triathlon Series standings (or in the final ITU Triathlon World
Cup standings, prior to 2009).
3. Have had a top ten finish in an International Triathlon Union sanctioned championship event.
4. Have an elite level podium finish at an ITU Continental Championship.
5. Have had a professional division top ten finish at the Ironman World Championship or at the Ironman 70.3 World
Championship.
6. Have had a podium finish at the XTERRA Triathlon championships.
7. Have won an event that has a starting pro/elite field of at least 15 male or 10 female competitors.
8. Have set a record for a standard distance event or leg.
12.4 Amateur sports persons
12.4.1
College athletes
College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a
repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include
head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another
sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
12.4.2
Gaelic games
Players of Gaelic games are presumed notable if they fulfill any of the following criteria:
1. Gaelic footballers who have played at senior inter-county level in the League or Championship
2. Gaelic handballers who have won at senior inter-county level
3. Hurlers who have played at senior inter-county level in the League or Championship
12.4.3
High school and pre-high school athletes
High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged
coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first
clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete
against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications.
It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.
12.5 Organizations and games notability
12.5.1
Teams
This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
76
12.5.2
Olympic and Paralympic Games
• Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including
the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic
Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan
• Nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable,
e.g. United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics
• Sports at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Archery
at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics
• Events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Cycling at the
2008 Summer Olympics – Men’s road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women’s
For details on suggested content for the above article types see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style.
12.5.3
Individual seasons
Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet
the notability requirements.
Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is
not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose
can be created.
For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US collegiate American football
team and a US collegiate fencing team enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly
greater amount of coverage):
• A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable.
• A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable
• A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the
top collegiate level is often notable.
• For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men’s basketball; Tennessee
and UConn in women’s basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons
might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of
these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General
Notability Guideline).
• In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together
in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable
standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.
12.5.4
Individual games or series
Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (events)
Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following:
• The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009
Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA
Champions League Final
12.6. RESEARCH LINKS
77
• College bowl games (not limited to BCS bowl games, see e.g. 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games).
• All-star or similar exhibition games, e.g. 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game
• A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each
game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons
brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)
Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable.
12.5.5
Rivalries
Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy
the general notability guideline.
12.6 Research links
See also: Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives
The following are some potential places to look for sources to establish sports notability:
• Chronicling America Library of Congress, historic newspapers from 1836–1922 (free)
• Google news search (mostly free)
• LA84 Foundation Digital archive of the LA84 Foundation research library; digitized books, periodicals, and magazines on sports (free)
• Newspaper archive Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access)
12.7 Notes
[1] "Statement to exclude Esports from this guideline" discussion, October–November 2011
[3] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple
directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography
of a person that covers that person’s life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot
form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database
are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low,
wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.
[4] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the
notability of a subject. “Intellectual independence” requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that
the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable).
For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but
multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person
contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution
does not.
78
[5] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether
people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published
non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis
Who’s Who) do not prove notability.
[6] “Regulations Governing International Matches” (PDF). FIFA. p. 7.
[7] Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may
be nominated for deletion.
[8] International Rugby Board (2011). “Regulation 16”. Regulations relating to the game (PDF). International Rugby Board. p.
151.
Chapter 13
Wikipedia:Notability (web)
WP:WEB and WP:INTERNET redirects here. You might be looking for Wikipedia:Build the web, Wikipedia:WikiProject
Websites, Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture.
From WP:NOT#INTERNET:
Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a
website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website’s achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference
sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events
for examples.
This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content,
being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content
includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics,
and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of
this guideline.[1]
Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and the idea that Wikipedia articles are not advertisements
is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.[2]
Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those
links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external
link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted.
Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deleting. Articles that may be nonnotable can be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem. When such articles
being listed for deletion, the articles are discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Alternatively, the proposed deletion
process may be used for articles that are uncontroversially deletion candidates, while the {{db-web}} template can be
used to mark an article for speedy deletion; see criterion A7 for details.
13.1 Decisions based on verifiable evidence
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability § Notability requires verifiable evidence
In the dictionary, notable means “worthy of being noted” or “attracting notice.” Wikipedia bases its decision about whether
web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted
the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Notability requires only that these
necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.
79
80
CHAPTER 13. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (WEB)
13.1.1
“Notability” is not synonymous with “fame” or “importance,” and even web content that editors personally believe is
“important” or “famous” is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt
from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little
attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly
notable or merely because it exists (see “If it’s not notable”, below).
When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects
on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites
are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability.
However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger
websites.
13.1.2
Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content
itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. For example, if a notable person has a website, then the
website does not “inherit” notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article
about the notable person.
Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not “inherit” notability due to the web content they
wrote.
13.2 Criteria
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent
and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content[3] may be notable based on
meeting one of the following criteria:
• The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of
the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine
articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4]
except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a
brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that
simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories
or online stores.
• The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]
These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content that Wikipedia should probably have
articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for
content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia
should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the content.
13.3 If the content is not notable
Further information: WP:FAILN
Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or
the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom
13.4. SEE ALSO
81
editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Wikipedia’s
goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators
say about themselves.
However, information about such web content may nevertheless be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that
certain conditions are met. Material about web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved
by adding it into relevant articles if it:
• includes information that can be verified through independent sources.
Web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article might be described in a relevant list of web content
like the List of internet phenomena. Material about websites might be merged to articles about the organizations that own
the websites. Appropriate redirects from the subject’s name should be created to help readers find such information.
13.4 See also
• Wikipedia:Cite sources
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Search engine test
13.5 Notes
[1] Content which has been packaged into material form, such as onto CD, DVD, or book form, but which is still primarily only
available for sale via the Internet, still falls under these guidelines. If such packaging of the product is widely available for sale
in major brick and mortar retailers, then it should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and
corporations).
[2] Articles about websites or content which fail these guidelines but are related to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion
may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion.
[3] Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless
the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect
to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
[4] Examples:
• The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
• The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and
The New York Times.
by someone else who is writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the
verifiability and neutrality problems that arise in material where the subject of the article itself is the source of material cited in
the article.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or
vendor) have actually considered the content or site worthy enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that
focus upon it.
[6] Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability.
82
13.6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
13.6.1
Text
• Wikipedia:Notability Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability?oldid=669715452 Contributors: Ed Poor, Arj, Rickyrab, MartinHarper, Sheldon Rampton, GTBacchus, ArnoLagrange, Ronz, Stefan-S, Rossami, Jeandré du Toit, John K, Andrevan, Samsara,
Jusjih, Pigsonthewing, Postdlf, Wjhonson, Centrx, Nifboy, Michey.M, Wolfkeeper, Tom harrison, Meursault2004, MSGJ, Bkonrad, Skagedal,
Gracefool, Golbez, Utcursch, SoWhy, ConradPino, Antandrus, Jossi, Phil Sandifer, Cynical, Demiurge, GreenReaper, Freakofnurture, Rich
Farmbrough, FT2, Vsmith, Pie4all88, Francis Schonken, Carptrash, Andrejj, Sockatume, Art LaPella, Adambro, Smalljim, Nyenyec, Reinyday, Enric Naval, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, VBGFscJUn3, 99of9, Jjron, Patsw, JYolkowski, Visviva, Diego Moya, Rd232, Hipocrite, Lectonar, SlimVirgin, Curious1i, CJ, Wtmitchell, Kanodin, Wtshymanski, Dan100, Tariqabjotu, Feezo, Star Trek Man, Richard Arthur Norton
(1958- ), Reinoutr, Percy Snoodle, Uncle G, Thivierr, Jacobolus, MONGO, Bdj, Mangojuice, AnmaFinotera, Radiant!, Holek, Graham87,
David Levy, Jclemens, Vanderdecken, Edison, TheronJ, Drbogdan, Lhademmor, Tizio, Nightscream, Quiddity, Seraphimblade, ElKevbo,
Kalogeropoulos, Vuong Ngan Ha, Mishuletz, Hiding, John Z, Gurch, NeoFreak, Fresheneesz, Srleffler, Chris is me, Jersey Devil, Metropolitan90, John Dalton, Manscher, Wavelength, Peregrine Fisher, Tznkai, Erachima, RJC, Chaser, Ansell, Jaymax, Lar, RadioFan, Chaos, Akhristov, EngineerScotty, Friday, NawlinWiki, DragonHawk, Msikma, Chick Bowen, R’son-W, Barberio, Ragesoss, Retired username, Aaron
Brenneman, Trollderella, Jmh123, Wolbo, Dragonfiend, Xiroth, Voidxor, Ormanbotanigi, Cerejota, DeadEyeArrow, Doncram, Haemo, Black
Falcon, Drboisclair, Hobit, Richardcavell, WAS 4.250, Sandstein, WarpstarRider, Zzuuzz, BenBildstein, Thnidu, Ketsuekigata, Arthur Rubin,
SMcCandlish, Cojoco, Sambc, Fram, Garion96, Gorgan almighty, Trickstar, Samuel Blanning, Elliskev, Luk, Elonka, Brianyoumans, Prodego,
KnowledgeOfSelf, VigilancePrime, Gigs, Shoy, Od Mishehu, Lawrencekhoo, Ikip, AnOddName, JJay, S9c31r1jo, Vassyana, Unforgettableid,
Chaojoker, Polaron, BenAveling, MRBboy2005, Skookum1, Trebor, Persian Poet Gal, AndrewRT, Thumperward, PrimeHunter, Bignole, Silly
rabbit, SchfiftyThree, Sloane, Ned Scott, RAlafriz, George Ho, Sephiroth BCR, Morton devonshire, Kittybrewster, Mr.Z-man, Blueboar, Pepsidrinka, Fuhghettaboutit, Шизомби, Decltype, Aelffin, Dreadstar, BullRangifer, FalconWarrior, Dragon695, RiseRobotRise, Wybot, KeithB,
Jeremyb, Xiutwel, Oceanh, Mion, Bn, Spiritia, SashatoBot, Lambiam, Mukadderat, Doug Bell, JzG, Jinnai, Scientizzle, SilkTork, JoshuaZ,
JorisvS, Kransky, Joshua Scott, IronGargoyle, Bilby, 041744, Slakr, Beetstra, SmokeyJoe, Masem, Stephen B Streater, TheFarix, Vanished
user, OnBeyondZebrax, HisSpaceResearch, Andrew Davidson, WGee, Colonel Warden, Walton One, Cbrown1023, DavidHOzAu, Tony Fox,
RekishiEJ, Happy-melon, Trialsanderrors, Kevin Murray, Croctotheface, Brian.fsm, CmdrObot, Unionhawk, ŠJů, BeenAroundAWhile, Picaroon, Simply south, Moreschi, Zinjixmaggir, Balloonman, Oden, Yaris678, Meno25, GRBerry, Pascal.Tesson, Daniel J. Leivick, Torc2,
DumbBOT, Xtv, Gonzo fan2007, Omicronpersei8, Vanished User jdksfajlasd, Satori Son, FrancoGG, Osborne, S Marshall, 24fan24, Mojo
Hand, Gerry Ashton, TheTruthiness, Second Quantization, Joaq99, Jonny-mt, NERIUM, CharlotteWebb, Dugwiki, Dawnseeker2000, Justyn,
AntiVandalBot, Majorly, Luna Santin, CobraWiki, Tangerines, Jayron32, Vic226, TimVickers, RobJ1981, Spartaz, Pixelface, Qwerty Binary,
JAnDbot, Skomorokh, Epeefleche, The Transhumanist, NE2, MelanieN, Sanchom, Seddon, PubliusFL, Michig, Xeno, Hut 8.5, PhilKnight,
Dream Focus, Askari Mark, JamesBWatson, Kajasudhakarababu, Father Goose, CTF83!, Boozerker, Nyttend, Sasha l~enwiki, WhatamIdoing, Lonewolf BC, Adrian J. Hunter, 28421u2232nfenfcenc, Wrad, David Eppstein, Martynas Patasius, Anrie, DerHexer, Philg88, Pan Dan,
ChazBeckett, WLU, JokerBoy, Lunakeet, DGG, G.A.S, Wassupwestcoast, FisherQueen, Zahakiel, PinkCake, MartinBot, J.delanoy, Mange01,
Abecedare, Bongomatic, Hans Dunkelberg, All Is One, Karanacs, Eliz81, Jreferee, A Nobody, Minderbinder~enwiki, Sebwite, MarceloB,
XIAYICI, Jeepday, Samtheboy, Jordyspiegel, Oakshade, Jmylar, Ohms law, F3developer, Gregfitzy, Dhaluza, RB972, Equazcion, Wikimandia, Alan012, Dorftrottel, Jnlin, Scottydude, Sgeureka, Ungoliant13, Funandtrvl, VigoDeutschendorf, VolkovBot, Chaos5023, Librarylefty,
ROxBo, Majoreditor, Fences and windows, Davidwr, Dominics Fire, Mike Cline, GimmeBot, BuickCenturyDriver, Kww, Drumcorpsfan1,
ElinorD, Someguy1221, TwilligToves, Melsaran, Wordsmith, UnitedStatesian, Guest9999, Anarchangel, Neatjake123, Gavin.collins, Meters,
SmileToday, Seresin, Fraserness, RWBooth, Jakshep2, Sesshomaru, Dmcq, Mike4ty4, Alex3212321, Brenont, Portalian, Moonriddengirl,
Hertz1888, Arf!, Gerakibot, Odd nature, This, that and the other, Smsarmad, Randolph Stetson, Aylad, LeadSongDog, Young Environmentalist Society of the Philippines, Freakie3, The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome, Horrorshowj, Oxymoron83, Gavinskee1993, Tombomp, Deadboyjohn,
Jruderman, OKBot, RabisaE, Inpuydenier, Smuschiano215, WikiLaurent, Dabomb87, Wahrmund, Stillwaterising, XDanielx, NickCT, Artichoker, Snigbrook, The Thing That Should Not Be, Rjd0060, ImperfectlyInformed, Lawrence Cohen, Dlabtot, Metroidkid1996, Jojominga,
Icantype, Johnxisxirish, John J. Bulten, Judo950, TomWetton, Henry rosa, Mkativerata, Heartagram girl07, Digorykirk, Jayantanth, MacedonianBoy, Brews ohare, Maddiie97, Cenarium, Hans Adler, Elizium23, Dekisugi, Randomran, DavidGreenberg123, Coreyp350, Anubis
Godfather, Littleteddy, Contains Mild Peril, Johnuniq, Anon126, Goodvac, Snthdiueoa, Hatenar, Facts707, Datjunk11, Dude527, Ryanman
the king, Edistomosin, Addbot, Drummerkyd8, Datinamou, Fgnievinski, Tothwolf, Blethering Scot, Sadik Khalid, Ironholds, Laurinavicius,
Jay27trey, KillaKlein06, CanadianLinuxUser, Barisaximan, Debresser, Donutjam, Patton123, Andrus Kallastu, Alanscottwalker, OlEnglish,
Jarble, Alocerxiii, Margin1522, Blah28948, Themfromspace, Pcap, Corey-v, Maheshkrishna69, Ningauble, DrFleischman, WikiScrubber,
FeydHuxtable, Renessaince, KDS4444, Tryptofish, ThaddeusB, Kingpin13, Mentranslopoilop, Puterlicious188, LovesMacs, LilHelpa, Captain short, A.d.a.p a.d.a.p, Capricorn42, Drilnoth, OlYeller21, Assauei, Srich32977, Shenequab5, Armbrust, Afc caitlin13, Gordonrox24,
Spellage, Samwb123, Zerosgirlygirl, Captain-n00dle, INVADER (BAND), Djmason43, WikiDonn, RoyGoldsmith, Ntoo2B, DARIN GOTTI,
Shooterwalker, Emir16, Geomike9, Gdje je nestala duša svijeta, Xxglennxx, Peterjuhlke, Cubs197, Arctic Night, Abductive, OrangeSparkle,
Martinvl, Smuckola, MastiBot, Peace and Passion, Mondotta, PPdd, VernoWhitney, Deathdivedog, Griswaldo, Erpert, Arskwad, Bxj, Wikfr,
Neil P. Quinn, Xanchester, Uzma Gamal, Unscintillating, Bped1985, Movses-bot, Drjames1, Rezabot, Lavalamp from Mars, ChristianandJericho, Be..anyone, Wbm1058, Theoldsparkle, Snaevar-bot, Northamerica1000, JohnChrysostom, Snow Rise, G1o2o3g4l5e6, Calindan, Victor
Yus, Walex03, Npmay, XapApp, APerson, Spirit of Eagle, Mysterious Whisper, Kephir, Murmure Mysterieux, EllenCT, Origamite, Vycl1994,
Johnsagent, Bumblebee9999, EvilLair, Esquivalience and Anonymous: 54
• Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(academics)?oldid=668021543 Contributors: Rbraunwa, Psychonaut, Nurg, Alan Liefting, Lurker, Prosfilaes, Piotrus, Quarl, Bender235, Zenohockey, Aude, Art LaPella, O18,
Circeus, Vesal, Alansohn, Avenue, LordViD, Bdj, Mangojuice, SDC, Radiant!, BD2412, Seraphimblade, ElKevbo, Nihiltres, John Z, Gurch,
Czar, Pete.Hurd, Srleffler, Metropolitan90, FrankTobia, Monicasdude, Wavelength, Erachima, KSchutte, Pproctor, Trovatore, Ragesoss,
Aldux, AdiJapan, Sandstein, Donald Albury, SMcCandlish, Paul Erik, Segv11, Amalthea, Elonka, Espresso Addict, Gigs, Lawrencekhoo,
Ikip, Mscuthbert, Gilliam, BenAveling, Optikos, Ryan Paddy, RayAYang, Octahedron80, Blueboar, Fuhghettaboutit, Richard001, DMacks,
Kendrick7, Lambiam, Zeraeph, SilkTork, JorisvS, SmokeyJoe, Dead3y3, Missionary, Trialsanderrors, Kevin Murray, Timrem, Anthonyh-
13.6. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
83
cole, Xxanthippe, Pascal.Tesson, Esowteric, Itsmejudith, Rrfayette, Mdotley, Nyttend, WhatamIdoing, David Eppstein, DGG, Oakshade,
Pundit, Fr33kman, VolkovBot, GimmeBot, Guillaume2303, Guest9999, Mike4ty4, Vinhtantran, Logan, Deconstructhis, StAnselm, TJRC,
Breawycker, Flyer22, DanJam2007, Msrasnw, AnteaterZot, Nsk92, DragonBot, Qwfp, Mythdon, EEng, Addbot, Giftiger wunsch, I am not
a dog, Fgnievinski, Myheartinchile, Margin1522, Minderbinder-de, Gunnar Hendrich, Quintinense, Tryptofish, Hippicanibus, Pontificalibus,
Mononomic, Srich32977, Pmddd3, Spikeglennon666, VS6507, Steve Quinn, Hellknowz, A8UDI, Wikitanvir, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, Wikki779,
Nivekin, Slawekb, Thecheesykid, Ardsdhaka, Jesanj, People bios, Tijfo098, RockMagnetist, ClaretAsh, Gilderien, Mohdmuzzammilshah, Editormilan, Royalblonde, Rezabot, Logofat de Chichirez, Wbm1058, Snaevar-bot, Slavicalalosevic, Solomon7968, Annmarieleimer, Barney the
barney barney, StarryGrandma, Victor Yus, Muemajosephmuinde, Selene Scott, Ducknish, NJ Wine, Junjunone, Mountaincirque, Jedidiah
Pamei, Forgot to put name, Randykitty, EvergreenFir, YiFeiBot, Ymoinuddin7, Yashpaul nirmal and Anonymous: 19
• Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(astronomical_objects)?oldid=
665931862 Contributors: ChicXulub, Rich Farmbrough, RJHall, Andrew Gray, CambridgeBayWeather, Sandstein, Modest Genius, Cybercobra, SilkTork, JorisvS, Headbomb, Kheider, Pikolas, Chrisrus, The Bushranger, Armbrust, Tom.Reding, StringTheory11, Odysseus1479,
Sailsbystars, Astrocog, Lukeno94, Northamerica1000, Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1, Padenton, Ggrmurugan87, Mogism, Praemonitus, Yashpaul nirmal and Anonymous: 1
• Wikipedia:Notability (books) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(books)?oldid=663764153 Contributors: Slrubenstein, Llywrch, Ihcoyc, WhisperToMe, DocWatson42, Jossi, Rlquall, Poccil, Rich Farmbrough, Kdammers, Francis Schonken, Bender235,
Smalljim, Kappa, Brainy J, MPerel, Alansohn, Gary, Hoary, GabrielF, Bdj, AnmaFinotera, DESiegel, Radiant!, Jclemens, TheronJ, Seraphimblade, Gurch, Metropolitan90, DVdm, C.Koltzenburg, Spacepotato, StuffOfInterest, Erachima, Black Falcon, 2over0, Nikkimaria, SMcCandlish, Jacqui M, D Monack, Macgreco, Elonka, Nihonjoe, Brianyoumans, Herostratus, Lawrencekhoo, Ramdrake, Ikip, UrbanTerrorist,
Vassyana, Kevinalewis, BenAveling, JackyR, Fishhead2100, Ned Scott, Matchups, Morton devonshire, Fuhghettaboutit, Richard001, RiseRobotRise, Jinnai, SilkTork, Davemcarlson, Noah Salzman, Yvesnimmo, Kyoko, Masem, TheFarix, RekishiEJ, Kevin Murray, JohnCD, Simply
south, Michaelas10, Pascal.Tesson, Teratornis, Smee, Rrfayette, Res2216firestar, Skomorokh, Dream Focus, Z22, Casmith 789, Hullaballoo
Wolfowitz, Father Goose, Swpb, WhatamIdoing, Xtifr, DGG, Ineffable3000, Ash, Arms & Hearts, Deor, VolkovBot, Chaos5023, Rtrace,
Perohanych, Guillaume2303, Wordsmith, UnitedStatesian, Miwanya, GlassFET, Jardinami, Accounting4Taste, Gerakibot, Quasirandom, Adabow, Beeblebrox, SummerWithMorons, Nathan Johnson, Pgallert, Addbot, Cst17, SamatBot, Ozob, The Bushranger, Themfromspace, Hinio,
KDS4444, ImperatorExercitus, James500, Obersachsebot, Thelima, Srich32977, Lookatthesea, Aedelcid, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Abductive, Half
price, Davidevans123, Tunocca, Lutz Bantilan, Joshuabseth, Lotje, Miracle Pen, Jowa fan, RockMagnetist, Clarakilala, Vas1ka, Rezabot,
Nadeemaraza, FuFoFuEd, Northamerica1000, Choor monster, Randykitty, Rhegium, Bilorv, Appable and Anonymous: 13
• Wikipedia:Notability (events) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(events)?oldid=667257741 Contributors: Jpatokal, Wiwaxia, Kusunose, FT2, Diego Moya, The Wordsmith, Ronnotel, Edison, Hiding, Jaymax, Cerejota, Black Falcon, Mjroots, Valley2city, George Ho, Blueboar, Cybercobra, Kendrick7, Lambiam, SilkTork, Masem, Location, Gatoclass, Jayen466, Bigtimepeace, Nyttend,
WhatamIdoing, Rusty Cashman, Mkdw, Paulmcdonald, Sebwite, Hellno2, Fences and windows, Davidwr, UnitedStatesian, Blurpeace,
,
The Devil’s Advocate, VQuakr, Secret (renamed), MickMacNee, TheRedPenOfDoom, Dunncon13, Secret, Matjamoe, Angryapathy, Cunard,
Addbot, The Other Saluton, The Bushranger, ThaddeusB, Ularevalo98, Bluerasberry, Bagumba, Azurfrog, MuffledThud, Paine Ellsworth,
Shooterwalker, Jonesey95, Suomi Finland 2009, Alzarian16, Pleazzer123, Hans chem, Mz7, Jenks24, Hodgdon’s secret garden, SporkBot,
Jesanj, L Kensington, Abel metre, Natalieacp, Unscintillating, Wdchk, M0rphzone, Northamerica1000, Dipankan001, Amiraram, Quant18,
Justin Briante, Spirit of Eagle, Frosty, Epicgenius, YiFeiBot, Africamusicconference, .js and Anonymous: 3
• Wikipedia:Notability (films) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(films)?oldid=665979292 Contributors: Pigsonthewing, PBS, Tom harrison, Alison, Rick Block, Piotrus, Girolamo Savonarola, Freakofnurture, Poccil, Bender235, RJHall, Bobo192,
Tcp-ip, Vesal, LtNOWIS, Visviva, AzaToth, Erik II, The JPS, Uncle G, Thivierr, AnmaFinotera, Radiant!, Gurch, Czar, Metropolitan90,
Extraordinary Machine, Kafziel, Erachima, Derex, Dragonfiend, SMcCandlish, Gnangarra, Chris the speller, Bignole, Behaafarid, Ikiroid,
Huji, DHeyward, Brimba, Morton devonshire, Cybercobra, EVula, Zadignose, JzG, SilkTork, Comicist, Slakr, OnBeyondZebrax, Eluchil404,
Esn, Mujinga, Kevin Murray, Steel, Pascal.Tesson, Gimmetrow, Satori Son, Robsinden, Alientraveller, Infophile, Big Bird, Majorly, Bigtimepeace, Prolog, Pixelface, Supernumerary, Cinematical, Kuwabaratheman, Z22, WhatamIdoing, Woknam66, NatGertler, You Can't See
Me!, Altes, Love Krittaya, PC78, Minderbinder~enwiki, Zezzzsz, Largoplazo, Bovineboy2008, Refsworldlee, GimmeBot, Guillaume2303,
Seraphim, DennyColt, UnitedStatesian, Gavin.collins, Vinhtantran, Scottywong, YLSS, Goodraise, Steve, Auntof6, Jayantanth, JasonAQuest,
Secret, MichaelQSchmidt, DoctorHver, Addbot, Roaring Siren, CactusWriter, Quintinense, HappyInDeath, Obersachsebot, JohnWhittle1989,
Lilsouljaondeck, Flashbackfamexx, Themoonunderwater, User F203, Knight rider club, Jonkerz, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, LcawteHuggle, Bonerboy123, K6ka, Polisher of Cobwebs, Abel metre, Uzma Gamal, Auchansa, Northamerica1000, Muneeb2000, Liam987, Sblove2010, Superheroprashast, Cyrilcn10, Ather.niazi11 and Anonymous: 9
• Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(geographic_features)?oldid=
662386934 Contributors: Scott, Kaldari, Sole Soul, Grutness, Rschen7754, Chris Capoccia, RFBailey, SMcCandlish, Imzadi1979, Cplakidas,
Ritchie333, Cybercobra, SilkTork, Masem, Clarityfiend, G. C. Hood, Silver seren, Oakshade, Idioma-bot, Davidwr, Kww, A4bot, Jack Merridew, Mr. Stradivarius, Nathan Johnson, Rividian, Addbot, Arxiloxos, James500, Yunshui, ‫دالبا‬, GoingBatty, Staszek Lem, Unscintillating,
Northamerica1000, Mysterious Whisper, Jakec and Anonymous: 2
• Wikipedia:Notability (music) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(music)?oldid=668532626 Contributors: Damian
Yerrick, Deb, Ericd, Karada, SebastianHelm, Jimfbleak, TUF-KAT, Rossami, Jeandré du Toit, Phr, Hyacinth, Wiwaxia, Pakaran, UninvitedCompany, Bearcat, Korath, Altenmann, Pingveno, Andrew Levine, Stirling Newberry, Gwalla, Tom harrison, Alison, Duncharris, Gracefool,
BesigedB, Falcon Kirtaran, Alvestrand, Tagishsimon, Gubbubu, SoWhy, Mike R, SarekOfVulcan, Antandrus, Beland, OverlordQ, Scottperry,
Quarl, MacGyverMagic, Phil Sandifer, Rdsmith4, Neutrality, Alkivar, Freakofnurture, Poccil, Jiy, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, LeeHunter, Night Gyr, Bender235, Spearhead, Art LaPella, Smalljim, Walkiped, Kappa, Giraffedata, Urthogie, Mareino, Gary, JYolkowski,
Walter Görlitz, Jnothman, Kurt Shaped Box, Fergie, Spangineer, BaronLarf, Danhash, Tony Sidaway, RJFJR, Dave.Dunford, Bookandcoffee, Uncle G, Thivierr, Trödel, Bdj, AnmaFinotera, Radiant!, SqueakBox, Noit, Magister Mathematicae, David Levy, Kbdank71, Jclemens,
TheronJ, Lars T., Koavf, Seraphimblade, Nneonneo, The wub, Leithp, Soundguy99, Newdeal~enwiki, Gurch, Czar, Jrtayloriv, Tedder, Srleffler, OpenToppedBus, Atchius, Mhking, Melodia, Extraordinary Machine, Hairy Dude, Erachima, Jtkiefer, Chris Capoccia, Chaser, RadioFan,
Stephenb, CambridgeBayWeather, Kimchi.sg, Friday, NawlinWiki, Ragesoss, Retired username, Alex43223, Syrthiss, Dissolve, Black Falcon,
84
PyroGamer, Donald Albury, SMcCandlish, Esprit15d, Jogers, Fram, Tyrenius, Ramanpotential, Paul Erik, Amberrock, Locke Cole, Amalthea,
Elonka, CastAStone, C.Fred, Lawrencekhoo, Stifle, PJM, Rmosler2100, Durova, BenAveling, Kleinzach, Stevage, CyberSach, Kostmo, The
Moose, Jahiegel, Jpq21, Onorem, TheKMan, Grover cleveland, Fuhghettaboutit, Savidan, Oceanh, Madangry, TenPoundHammer, Sesquialtera II, JzG, Dbtfz, Scientizzle, J 1982, SilkTork, Disavian, Michael Bednarek, Edwy, Joshua Scott, Voceditenore, Ryulong, Dr.K., Dl2000,
Vanished user, OnBeyondZebrax, Iridescent, Sam Clark, Aeternus, Twas Now, Tony Fox, Trialsanderrors, Kevin Murray, Shirahadasha,
Ned Wilbury, Switchercat, JForget, Denaar, BeenAroundAWhile, JohnCD, MrFizyx, THF, Melicans, Ejph, Simply south, Alton, Doctormatt, Gogo Dodo, Otto4711, The Little Blue Frog, Benjiboi, Trystero11, Christian75, Torc2, DumbBOT, Ssilvers, In Defense of the Artist,
Robert.Allen, Richhoncho, Qwyrxian, PEJL, Kablammo, Mojo Hand, Marek69, Nadav1, Jonny-mt, Robert m. green, Dawnseeker2000, Ssr,
Konman72, Yonatan, SummerPhD, Marokwitz, Prolog, Rrfayette, Jayron32, Restone, Leinad, Hoponpop69, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling,
Deadbeef, JAnDbot, Leuko, MER-C, Epeefleche, Rearete, Michig, PhilKnight, LittleOldMe, Acroterion, Bongwarrior, AuburnPilot, JNW,
Swpb, CTF83!, I JethroBT, WhatamIdoing, Giggy, Animum, Ahecht, Miss Mondegreen, Shocking Blue, Torchiest, 28421u2232nfenfcenc,
Mkdw, Philg88, Leon Sword, LedgendGamer, J.delanoy, Captain panda, Tikiwont, Nigholith, WarthogDemon, Neon white, Aaron Hazelton,
Minderbinder~enwiki, P4k, Ryan Postlethwaite, Vpluciano, Chiswick Chap, WHeimbigner, Aervanath, Largoplazo, Izno, Steel1943, CardinalDan, Black Kite, VolkovBot, One Night In Hackney, Indubitably, Fences and windows, Thebakeryofbman, Tavix, ZERO-EN, Kww,
Canuckle, Rockstar915, Alejandrozamora, Gekritzl, UnitedStatesian, Aademola72, Madhero88, Street Mob, Enviroboy, Spinningspark, Alaniaris, NinjaRobotPirate, Mike4ty4, Nagy, Lil Jay55, Nouse4aname, Fanatix, Cosprings, Ponyo, XDK, Tresiden, Rlendog, Moonriddengirl,
Gerakibot, This, that and the other, LeadSongDog, JD554, Arbor to SJ, Lagrange613, KPH2293, Steven Zhang, Tati tutigirl, OKBot, Adam
Cuerden, Scottyoak2, Anchor Link Bot, Wuhwuzdat, Dust Filter, Dizzy dee, Efe, The sunder king, Fyromusic, Wysprgr2005, Pairadox,
Drmies, Winger84, Qsaw, AlptaBot, Blanchardb, Hello Control, Resoru, Keishum Triplett, Murderfist, SpikeToronto, Rairaichan, Sun Creator, Rockboy909, NuclearWarfare, Soundvisions1, SkillzMcnillz, Random86, Dank, Versus22, Hatenar, Jax 0677, Cagey Millipede, Delicious carbuncle, Universal Cereal Bus, Blast Ulna, Dude527, Duffbeerforme, Danrossi12, Ronnie816, Addbot, Lesley.winter, Private Sound,
Yoenit, IbLeo, Adrian 1001, Donnieday123, OliverTwisted, 1qwerty1, PranksterTurtle, Roux, Kosm1fent, Tide rolls, OlEnglish, YOUNGF95,
The Bushranger, Ben Ben, Pcap, Sheryarnizar, Sethkabs, Gongshow, Rogerb67, Lady154, Peter bruce, Vanish user s8jswe823rnfscu8sejhr4,
Quintinense, The Absolute Hungary, ThaddeusB, IRP, Helena x, Sushant singh, Kingpin13, Freestylekyle, Fateeastwood, TParis, Wastedconcept, Materialscientist, Dendlai, Raggadrian, National war, MauritsBot, Adrian 85 85, Jayel31, IHelpWhenICan, OlYeller21, Jubileeclipman,
SebbeIversen, Jeffrey Mall, Dj sultan1, Mopza, Wizard31568, Lil-unique1, Hi878, Sionk, J04n, Kinganand91, Mark smart, GB1992, Vampirefirexxx, The Interior, Mash 339, Sabrebd, Deluxevmix, Orance, Marialenamak, SchnitzelMannGreek, Shujuan5210, IANDNOBODY,
Terrence1947, VelocityRules, Lamougue, XMesaplayerx,
, Freamat, I42, Dhammond81, Jack Daniel Adams, Congo69, Freddielive,
Kidx, Jbc kings, Wifione, Nellafantasia, DivineAlpha, Launchballer, Motelb2, Pinethicket, Peter Dzubay, Calmer Waters, Peace+Love+Earth,
Erahmunirah, CodyMunroe, Theycallmeleo, Emanuel Anderson, Iyannadean, DeanDeanDefoe, Stephenmilofinlay, Olivia Corporate America( O.C.A), Meganequashie, Achen23, Tbhotch, Pbxboy2004, Taniarocks, Roblees321, Hobbes Goodyear, Fiftytwo thirty, Beyond My Ken,
CITI18, J36miles, Delviscon, Thebignastyband, STATicVapor, Paradox10, Exok, Djghaza, Eli03, Devin, Khidprince, TookieMonster9986,
Mz7, Tatendad12, Thomas Breedlove, Liquidmetalrob, Bryce Carmony, Rwbf1235, Roxae, Vanruvan, Eugene Hogg, Tree montoya, Majee Muzik, Netsplayer5, Danmuz, Yorkshiresoul, GCHoodlum, Afields3162, FurrySings, Ashleyyamoss, Dr.C.Winstanley, Kheyilla, Muslim lo Juheu, Lukeno94, Young Seth, Missjaelyn1990, Geofferybard, ItsRalo, Stevetraylor234, Wbm1058, Donisdube, TeamTK11, Bmusician, Rishavmusic, Armadillopteryx, Mark Arsten, Wesley Mouse, We're The Brits, Ian Streeter, Brbual1, George Apostolakis, ZappaOMati,
SD5bot, EuroCarGT, XxXTGSXxX, Rezonansowy, Kikisire, Iommi94, 069952497a, Jasonyoung6, VanishedUser 2313214sad1, Asma7867,
BreakfastJr, Mystic Shadows, Elisabeth thun, Saffron music group, Flat Out, Carwile2, Phaedrx, YiFeiBot, SNUGGUMS, MehranJavidmusic,
Icensnow42, Thebigbi, SelfishWays FanClub, Jermain Casper, Rationalobserver, Bognakici, Degrau, Danagaynor and Anonymous: 102
• Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(numbers)?oldid=610385750 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Jitse Niesen, Bkell, Robinh, PrimeFan, Numerao, Anton Mravcek, Pmanderson, Jiy, Discospinster, Bender235, Brian0918,
Touriste, Smalljim, Interiot, Keenan Pepper, Uncle G, Splintax, Mazca, Dodiad, Radiant!, JHMM13, Ucucha, Gurch, Fresheneesz, Metropolitan90, Trovatore, Arthur Rubin, SMcCandlish, Reyk, Finell, Locke Cole, Elonka, Popo le Chien, The Famous Movie Director, Droll, Stevage,
Cybercobra, Lambiam, PseudoSudo, SmokeyJoe, Kevin Murray, BeenAroundAWhile, DumbBOT, Asenine, Optimist on the run, Ebyabe, EdJohnston, CompositeFan, Edokter, Meatman22, Wlmh65, Singularity, David Eppstein, Laurusnobilis, VolkovBot, Vinhtantran, AirdishStraus,
Qwfp, ComposteFun, Jkasd, Elehack, Insider, Troogleplex, E235, Etaittunpe, Arammozuob, Auclairde, Franklsf95, Michgrig, Jay-Sebastos,
Arguablybrilliant, Lanthanum-138 and Anonymous: 9
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(organizations_and_
companies)?oldid=668280376 Contributors: Lquilter, IZAK, Ihcoyc, Bdonlan, Ronz, Rossami, Mxn, Hyacinth, Samsara, Dpbsmith, PBS,
Mushroom, Alan Liefting, JamesMLane, DocWatson42, Wolfkeeper, Cobaltbluetony, Orangemike, Subsolar, Dsmdgold, Piotrus, Jossi, MacGyverMagic, Ukexpat, Reflex Reaction, Poccil, Jiy, Hydrox, Night Gyr, Bender235, Cyclopia, Charm, Circeus, Smalljim, Runnerupnj, Trevj,
J.reed, Brainy J, Nsaa, Patsw, Gary, Qwghlm, Interiot, Diego Moya, Rd232, Lectonar, Dhartung, Tony Sidaway, R6MaY89, Deathphoenix,
Saxifrage, OwenX, Uncle G, Scjessey, Bdj, AnmaFinotera, Abd, Radiant!, Graham87, Edison, Vegaswikian, Williamborg, SchuminWeb, Akihabara, Hiding, Gurch, Intgr, Alphachimp, Srleffler, Roboto de Ajvol, Erachima, Boréal, Ansell, RadioFan, Cryptic, Spike Wilbury, Trovatore,
Trollderella, Misza13, BOT-Superzerocool, Evrik, Black Falcon, 2over0, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, SMcCandlish, Paul Erik, Selmo,
NickelShoe, Locke Cole, Elonka, Slashme, Martinp, Gigs, Lawrencekhoo, Ikip, WilyD, DanielPenfield, Nscheffey, CrypticBacon, Unforgettableid, Kmarinas86, Philosopher, EncMstr, Droll, Jahiegel, Hildanknight, Icerat, Blueboar, EVula, DMacks, Oceanh, Spiritia, SashatoBot,
Lambiam, Jjjjjjjjjj, JzG, SilkTork, Tktktk, NJA, SmokeyJoe, Agent 86, Fsotrain09, AGK, Kevin Murray, Mohammed al-Khawal, Karenjc,
Vectro, Michaelas10, B, Msnicki, Pchaney, Teratornis, Vanished User jdksfajlasd, Crum375, Mojo Hand, WilliamH, Smile a While, MichaelMaggs, Widefox, Just Chilling, Danger, Suriyane, Myanw, Barek, Skomorokh, Dream Focus, Hroðulf, CTF83!, Catgut, WhatamIdoing, Animum, Thedreamdied, Mkdw, Philg88, B. Wolterding, Jerem43, MartinBot, Nehwyn, Bongomatic, Herbythyme, Kudpung, Sebwite, Aboutmovies, Oakshade, Nick Graves, Dhaluza, Nicer1, Funandtrvl, VolkovBot, Jamcib~enwiki, DancingMan, WOSlinker, Tavix, Baileypalblue,
A4bot, Assize, Hamitr, UnitedStatesian, Guest9999, Gavin.collins, Discgolfrules, Alaniaris, NinjaRobotPirate, CT Cooper, Resurgent insurgent, Neparis, Tresiden, Gerakibot, Smsarmad, Chromaticity, Dannebrog Spy, Neutralhomer, The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome, OKBot, Dodger67,
Dabomb87, Dolphin51, Leranedo, Binksternet, Czarkoff, Uncle Milty, AlptaBot, QSSI-WMS, Harland1, PÆon, Niteshift36, Jayantanth,
Soundvisions1, Goodvac, Tdslk, Hatenar, Bearsona, AlanM1, Vianello, EEng, HexaChord, Captain-tucker, SamatBot, Patton123, Esasus,
Margin1522, Arxiloxos, KDS4444, Quintinense, Tryptofish, ThaddeusB, Ulric1313, AmirImam, Slcdirector, Truth or consequences-2, Star-
13.6. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
85
menusa, James500, Freemanjay, Ericnappy, Obersachsebot, The Banner, Hitheremynameisn'tgreg, Capricorn42, Drilnoth, Fmph, Mnnlaxer,
Jmundo, Kiwanis girl, Coretheapple, Wikignome0529, Jacobt868, SheliaSwanson, Ssinc718, Xaloss, Business Worldwide, RightCowLeftCoast, Yourworstreview, Syam707,
, Wifione, T3h 1337 b0y, Hellknowz, Suomi Finland 2009, Aoidh, Noraft, VernoWhitney, Are You
The Cow Of Pain?, FunkyCanute, Mz7, Gparyani, ResidentAnthropologist, Unscintillating, Auchansa, KLBot2, Theoldsparkle, Northamerica1000, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, Op47, The Whispering Wind, Amolbot, Alvin Lee, DoctorKubla, Npmay, Padenton, NJ Wine, Ikseevon, Esquivalience and Anonymous: 37
• Wikipedia:Notability (people) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(people)?oldid=667582773 Contributors: Eloquence, SimonP, Anthere, Imran, Camembert, Hephaestos, Tillwe, Michael Hardy, EvanProdromou, Oliver Pereira, MartinHarper, Dcljr, Axlrosen, SebastianHelm, Baylink, Theresa knott, TUF-KAT, Angela, Cgs, Rossami, Scott, JASpencer, Kat, Harris7, RickK, Greenrd, Hyacinth,
UninvitedCompany, Bearcat, Astronautics~enwiki, PBS, Altenmann, Lowellian, Postdlf, Wjhonson, Ktotam, Caknuck, UtherSRG, Michael
Snow, Anthony, Alan Liefting, David Gerard, Dbenbenn, Cantara, Cobaltbluetony, Netoholic, Tom harrison, Orangemike, Curps, Michael Devore, Jason Quinn, Gracefool, Angelo.romano, Leonard Vertighel, Andycjp, Pamri, Antandrus, BozMo, Beland, Piotrus, Quarl, Kaldari, Jossi,
Necrothesp, Arcturus, JavaTenor, GreenReaper, Poccil, Jiy, Discospinster, Twinxor, Rich Farmbrough, Hydrox, FT2, ArnoldReinhold, Francis
Schonken, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Byrial, Uppland, Cyclopia, Brian0918, Szyslak, Art LaPella, Cigarette, Chriscf, Circeus, Fuzzyonion, John
Vandenberg, Enric Naval, Jguk 2, Kappa, Trevj, Brainy J, Mareino, Vesal, Patsw, Gary, GRider, Interiot, Improv, Hipocrite, SlimVirgin, Hoary,
Mrholybrain, Malo, Idont Havaname, Scott5114, Wtmitchell, Malber, RJFJR, BDD, Recury, Djsasso, Dismas, Squiquifox, Pcpcpc, Mwalcoff, Scarykitty, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), RHaworth, ScottDavis, Percy Snoodle, Uncle G, Thivierr, The Wordsmith, Bdj, Cbdorsett,
Oldie~enwiki, Terence, Mangojuice, AnmaFinotera, Joe Beaudoin Jr., Radiant!, Youngamerican, RuM, Matilda, Graham87, Marskell, Ryoung122, David Levy, Jclemens, TheronJ, Tabercil, Mayumashu, Nightscream, Amire80, Seraphimblade, Vegaswikian, Oxydo~enwiki, NeonMerlin, ElKevbo, Kalogeropoulos, Williamborg, Sango123, Yamamoto Ichiro, ShadowyCaballero, CalJW, RexNL, Gurch, Sborsody, Nuge,
Daev, Metropolitan90, FrankTobia, Ravenswing, Fuzzy6988, YurikBot, Wavelength, Erachima, Midgley, Pburka, Me and, Splette, Ansell,
Lar, RadioFan2 (usurped), Chensiyuan, Eleassar, Kimchi.sg, Wimt, EngineerScotty, NawlinWiki, Golfcam, Wiki alf, Howcheng, SCZenz,
Retired username, Aaron Brenneman, Shinmawa, Aldux, Number 57, Misza13, Cerejota, BOT-Superzerocool, BusterD, CLW, Black Falcon,
Wknight94, Hobit, Sandstein, Theda, [email protected], SMcCandlish, Reyk, Esprit15d, ZabMilenko, Fram, Kevin, Tyrenius, Jaranda,
Gorgan almighty, David Biddulph, JeffBurdges, Katieh5584, Kingboyk, Resolute, Locke Cole, Yakudza, AndreniW, RDBury, YellowMonkey,
Herostratus, VigilancePrime, Gigs, Bigbluefish, Pgk, CyclePat, C.Fred, Lawrencekhoo, Petercorless, Davewild, Bwithh, Mscuthbert, PJM,
Timotheus Canens, Cool3, Unforgettableid, JFHJr, PeterSymonds, Polaron, Marc Kupper, BenAveling, UnkleFester, Philosopher, Catchpole,
Thumperward, PrimeHunter, SchfiftyThree, Droll, Stevage, RayAYang, TheFeds, Verrai, Royboycrashfan, George Ho, Quaque, Jahiegel,
Onorem, ChrisTheDude, Benjamin Mako Hill, Tommyjb, Kittybrewster, Fuhghettaboutit, Nakon, Savidan, Valenciano, EVula, Vedek Dukat,
Wizardman, Pats1, Runcorn, Oceanh, Risker, Bejnar, Ged UK, Spiritia, Lambiam, Thesmothete, Rory096, Jbonfant, Doug Bell, Harryboyles,
BrownHairedGirl, Valfontis, Srikeit, JzG, John, AnonEMouse, Heimstern, SilkTork, Wotwu, JoshuaZ, Mr. Lefty, Joshua Scott, IronGargoyle,
Nagle, Ckatz, For great justice., Meco, SandyGeorgia, Andysiebe, Dr.K., SmokeyJoe, Noleander, Masem, Asatruer, Alan.ca, RudyB, GDallimore, Happy-melon, Phoenixrod, Greg Back, Kevin Murray, Mysterious1der, Dpmoeckel, King of the North East, Wafulz, Dycedarg, Olaf
Davis, BeenAroundAWhile, JohnCD, THF, Simply south, NE Ent, Location, Balloonman, NealIRC, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Reywas92,
Slp1, Steel, Michaelas10, Bellerophon5685, Anthonyhcole, Otto4711, Lugnuts, Huysman, Pascal.Tesson, Odie5533, Msnicki, Xtv, Quasilogic,
In Defense of the Artist, Daniel Olsen, Gimmetrow, Satori Son, Casliber, Epbr123, Biruitorul, Crockspot, Hit bull, win steak, Dalejenkins,
Dasani, Ishdarian, Mojo Hand, Mereda, Simeon H, Marek69, Frank, CharlotteWebb, Calathan, Oreo Priest, Ju66l3r, AntiVandalBot, Majorly,
Luna Santin, Seaphoto, Dr. Blofeld, Rrfayette, Noroton, Modernist, [email protected], Spartaz, Myanw, JAnDbot, Xhienne, NBeale, MERC, MelanieN, Ccrrccrr, PhilKnight, Dream Focus, Rothorpe, Acroterion, Freshacconci, Cynfil, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Kuyabribri, CTF83!,
Nyttend, Dtnix77, WhatamIdoing, Just H, Nat, Thibbs, DerHexer, Dkriegls, Xtifr, Ll Padre, NatGertler, B. Wolterding, DGG, G.A.S, Gjd001,
Wassupwestcoast, MartinBot, Miaers, SamiKaero, EyeSerene, 80eyes, Fleetflame, Anaxial, Geercom, Ash, Lilac Soul, 2012Olympian, Tikiwont, 5Q5, Cocoaguy, Minderbinder~enwiki, Katalaveno, Dahliarose, Oakshade, Pyrospirit, Toon05, Flatterworld, Largoplazo, BigHairRef,
Dhaluza, Cometstyles, WJBscribe, Atama, Inwind, Steel1943, Funandtrvl, Owen 78910, Malik Shabazz, Juskari, One Night In Hackney,
Indubitably, Fences and windows, Refsworldlee, GimmeBot, Perohanych, Kww, Dinybot, Miranda, Walor, Terence7, John Carter, DennyColt, Corvus cornix, CanOfWorms, UnitedStatesian, Mr. Absurd, CO, Danny sepley, Andy Dingley, Steve Smith, Softlavender, Ronjohn,
Spinningspark, Truthanado, Soapstacey, Bswartz, Logan, However whatever, Resurgent insurgent, Neparis, Ko0liosss, Gerakibot, Dawn Bard,
Jbmurray, Nathan, Alexdreia, Happysailor, Toddst1, Flyer22, LibStar, Mandsford, Horrorshowj, Leeroycjenkins, Correogsk, BSoD, Dodger67,
Alatari, Rebhd4, Rellis0415, Dabomb87, Denisarona, Stillwaterising, Tuntable, Myrvin, The sunder king, Smashville, Gene93k, Wallak, Devilvitus, Lawrence Cohen, Nsk92, Dpmuk, Ryan is kool, MATThematical, AlptaBot, Morbidthoughts, Prittynpink857, Japanesejazz, John J.
Bulten, Secret (renamed), Rockfang, Alice, Ajoykt, Brewcrewer, Mkativerata, Agentareas, Diaboli, Lartoven, Jayantanth, NuclearWarfare,
Singhalawap, Dangerous198, Derriqua, Mlaffs, Light show, George.isbasoiu, Secret, Thingg, Scalhotrod, Berean Hunter, Wnt, Hatenar, Delicious carbuncle, Wertuose, PseudoOne, Maraba~enwiki, Astyles21, Blast Ulna, Duffbeerforme, Mabalu, Addbot, Power.corrupts, JBsupreme,
Gmanstation, Yoenit, EvaLamar, Damiens.rf, Debresser, PotionsMasterSnape, Esasus, Adrock666, Jon b49, Myheartinchile, OlEnglish, Jarble, Arbitrarily0, Ben Ben, Legobot, Minderbinder-de, C2schoen, Brandy Frisky, Pcap, Guy1890, Lady154, Bbb23, Michaeljohnx, Juzhong,
Tryptofish, Countercouper, Kountkracula, ThaddeusB, Rjanag, Killiondude, Cavarrone, Cptnono, ErikTheBikeMan, Bluerasberry, James500,
Algébrico, Obayd, Kcornwall, Purplebackpack89, Betty Logan, Ched, Srich32977, J04n, Off2riorob, Armbrust, Mark Schierbecker, Sandcherry, RightCowLeftCoast, FrescoBot, User F203, Tranletuhan, Unitanode, Wifione, Hell in a Bucket, Berny68, Rapsar, Elockid, Abductive,
Origoventus, FormerIP, Cullen328, SergeWoodzing, Jordgette, Judika39, Suomi Finland 2009, MrX, Jpet5786, Schwede66, MShabazz, VernoWhitney, Solarra, Kiran Gopi, Erpert, Mz7, Redhanker, Testales, Hodgdon’s secret garden, Staszek Lem, Demiurge1000, SBaker43, Chewings72, Bill william compton, Justice007, FurrySings, Sitic, Ilyaseenkhan, Uzma Gamal, MelbourneStar, Wdchk, Lukeno94, RichardOSmith,
Rezabot, Wbm1058, Jeraphine Gryphon, Lowercase sigmabot, Kndimov, MusikAnimal, Mark Arsten, AngusWOOF, APerson, Koopatrev, NJ
Wine, Lugia2453, Churn and change, Bcmsr1, KingQueenPrince, Rebecca1990, Rajvir Singh Randhawa, Chris troutman, Heykarthikwithu,
Alok7910, SNUGGUMS, Arianitsllamniku, Liz, Bhoomathivanan, UI1990, AlDaBeast24, Amit990, Tkplusfourequalscool, Bnoutsourcin,
Mathew2014, Rudradubey983, Madihahal, Drprhansmann, Clubjustin4, Succour, Symfoni1000, Sarkawt16, Isaiah.oltiano, Sumac1016, Sally
Wells, Zeanfan, Mdryden14, LA Flexy, Mhendriks1810, Nazish Chaudhry, Ranbir Singh rs, Vaishak Mepram, Sjstudent2014, Emmanuel
Sangalali Sengwa, MCMenominee, Abelekene, Nyongolo chani, Jsrinivas.sql, Maitysuman86, Sam hauhnar, Raghav6478, Vienne augistin,
Patrickmwega, Shilpa Prince, Abhiranjan7912, Shree9595, Kukku.kanyal007, Retlametswe, Kingkongafrica, Menica1, Nmalik890, Cem Gür,
SageGreenRider, Joseph2302, 123rahmoney, Insonet, Peopleislampur, YounessOfficial, Arogya neel, VhenzreignBSIT, Military Tracker, El
86
Mahdi Boutbaik, Rajal abbas, Ifepoly, JUMA MALEVE, Tauphik Ahamad, Mountain christian, Josephboyat, Library84192a, Azamrafiul,
Mihran H Kalaydjian and Anonymous: 107
• Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(sports)?oldid=667656976 Contributors: Dale
Arnett, Earl Andrew, Moondyne, Dave6, Graeme Bartlett, Michael Devore, SoWhy, MisfitToys, Oknazevad, Bender235, Nabla, Gary, LunarLander, Djsasso, Johntex, Stuartyeates, NeoChaosX, Graham87, Jweiss11, Alaney2k, Nick mallory, Cmadler, Metropolitan90, Jared Preston, Ravenswing, The Rambling Man, Alexsautographs, Lincolnite, Hack, Royalbroil, Doctorindy, Wolbo, Number 57, Zagalejo, Bob247,
Spanneraol, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, SMcCandlish, Fram, Jaranda, PRehse, Resolute, Dweller, WilyD, Chris the speller, Muboshgu,
Whpq, LtPowers, SilkTork, Gnevin, Isaacl, Joshua Scott, InedibleHulk, Meco, Masem, GiantSnowman, Kevin Murray, King of the North East,
Kevin McE, BRMo, CBM, Location, Montanabw, Vanished user k9iuw4roilaldkj, Lugnuts, B, Mattlore, Tewapack, JonBroxton, Casliber,
Hit bull, win steak, G. C. Hood, TonyTheTiger, Mojo Hand, Basement12, Obiwankenobi, Fyunck(click), Osubuckeyeguy, NSH001, J Mo
101, Severo, Z22, Kolindigo, JNW, Kinston eagle, Fabrictramp, WhatamIdoing, Sticks66, Ahecht, Eldumpo, ClubOranje, SpecialWindler,
Schmloof, LedRush, Kudpung, FruitMonkey, Arms & Hearts, Pawnkingthree, Jrcla2, Jevansen, 28bytes, Rikster2, Tavix, UnitedStatesian,
Gibson Flying V, Suriel1981, Grsz11, Quantpole, Scottywong, Hcagri, Barkeep, Trackinfo, Rlendog, Stananson, Phil Bridger, Hello71, TheG-Unit-Boss, Florentyna, Struway2, Wjemather, Jmfangio, RonSigPi, MATThematical, Drmies, VQuakr, Secret (renamed), Mkativerata,
M4gnum0n, Niteshift36, DeltaQuad, Bald Zebra, Secret, Forbes72, Sir Sputnik, Penale52, Bazj, Cunard, Addbot, Vejvančický, Giants2008,
Theworm777, Sillyfolkboy, Ashman05, Arteyu, Minderbinder-de, Themfromspace, Bbb23,
, KDS4444, Tryptofish, DynamoDegsy, Bagumba, Zad68, Tomwsulcer, Armbrust, Ute in DC, PM800, FrescoBot, Youndbuckerz, Dirtlawyer1, Kennx442, LauraHale, Eagles247,
Yutsi, Codf1977, Stalwart111, WaitingForConnection, Sideways713, Ernestogon, Hobbes Goodyear, VernoWhitney, Aircorn, Canada Hky,
John of Reading, Drjeanbag, Heymid, Maniacduhockey, Prayerfortheworld, Dolovis, Jenks24, Unreal7, Mentoz86, Staszek Lem, L Kensington, ShawnSim, Abel metre, Mjbmrbot, Satellizer, Lukeno94, Imsosirius, Maddrokayaker, Roverbto, Mtking, Lowercase sigmabot, Viweir,
Northamerica1000, Joeykai, Mark Arsten, Tazerdadog, Mdtemp, Prg.sdme, Poison Whiskey, Sander.v.Ginkel, XyZAn, Barryjjoyce, BuzzardsWatch Me Work, Victor Yus, Northiceman, APerson, Canepa, Sportygeek, Theworldgymnast1, Dru Veronica, Rocroa86, Oiyarbepsy and
Anonymous: 28
• Wikipedia:Notability (web) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(web)?oldid=659405436 Contributors: Bryan
Derksen, The Anome, Shii, GTBacchus, Jpatokal, Aviado, Random832, Xuanwu, Chocolateboy, Jmabel, Texture, David Gerard, Aharon,
Nifboy, Alison, Gamaliel, Niteowlneils, VampWillow, SarekOfVulcan, Fangz, J3ff, Jossi, Phil Sandifer, Humblefool, Zondor, Adashiel,
Freakofnurture, MattKingston, Jiy, Sirmob, Johan Elisson, Rich Farmbrough, Francis Schonken, Grutter, Android79, BACbKA, Karmafist,
Just zis Guy, you know?, Perfecto, Guettarda, Nyenyec, Reinyday, Urthogie, Naturenet, Brainy J, Nsaa, Mareino, Gary, Polarscribe, Walter
Görlitz, Interiot, CyberSkull, DreamGuy, TheRealFennShysa, Omphaloscope, Tony Sidaway, Bobbyray, Feezo, Simetrical, Starblind, Uncle
G, Bdj, Optichan, Radiant!, Marudubshinki, RuM, Tizio, Vary, Seraphimblade, Nneonneo, SchuminWeb, CalJW, Hiding, Gurch, Fresheneesz, Chobot, Metropolitan90, Hahnchen, Uriah923, YurikBot, Sceptre, Stan2525, Erachima, Robert A West, Splash, Lar, Sikon, Cryptic,
PatCheng, Chunky Rice, Nick, Retired username, Aaron Brenneman, Trollderella, Dragonfiend, Xiroth, Misza13, Jeremy Visser, Getcrunk,
SMcCandlish, Roke, Fagles, Locke Cole, A bit iffy, InverseHypercube, CyclePat, Dealerofsalvation, J•A•K, Tim Pierce, Ianmacm, Rockpocket, Spiritia, SashatoBot, JzG, Jinnai, Aaronchall, PseudoSudo, Stratadrake, For great justice., Hu12, TheFarix, Vanished user, Aeternus,
Nydas, Kevin Murray, Moreschi, MC10, Pascal.Tesson, DumbBOT, Mojo Hand, Dawnseeker2000, Justyn, Rrfayette, AaronY, JAnDbot,
Leuko, Barek, Skomorokh, CTF83!, WhatamIdoing, Giggy, Philg88, Dr.Who, Orunab, Ian.thomson, Minderbinder~enwiki, It Is Me Here,
Kraftlos, NicholaiDaedalus, VolkovBot, Lovablebeautyme, Seb26, UnitedStatesian, Logan, Yngvarr, Gerakibot, Oxymoron83, OKBot, Ascidian, Leranedo, Lawrence Cohen, Ruggersfanatic, DragonBot, M4gnum0n, Dank, Oore, Hatenar, Ruggerboy, Duffbeerforme, Andreas791,
Addbot, Jimmydean1013, Guoguo12, Ahmednero, MrOllie, Tide rolls, OlEnglish, Apteva, Bafy mc barfbarf, Raazju, Aboalbiss, E235, Obersachsebot, Grim23, Parpersavemenowkettle, Julle, Doggyluva.113, Mark Schierbecker, Paramecium, PSNMand, Anacarolinavotr, Giftpflanze,
Blackbirdz, Roberth69, Tonyshah, Jezzasexiles, Starblueheather, Tisane, Wikipelli, Parxliveeasy, Northamerica1000, Dylancoffmanisawsome,
and Anonymous: 38
13.6.2
Images
• File:Blue_check.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Blue_check.svg License: Public domain Contributors:
Blue check.png: <a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_check.png' class='image'><img alt='Blue check.png' src='//upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Blue_check.png' width='32' height='32' data-file-width='30' data-file-height='30' /></a> Original artist: Gregory
Maxwell
• File:Blue_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Blue_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by-sa3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:OEISicon_light.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/OEISicon_light.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Watchduck (a.k.a. Tilman Piesk)
• File:Symbol_book_class2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Symbol_book_class2.svg License: CC BYSA 2.5 Contributors: Mad by Lokal_Profil by combining: Original artist: Lokal_Profil
• File:Walnut.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Walnut.png License: CC0 Contributors: Previously located
at en:Image:Walnut.png Original artist: en:User:Renesis
13.6.3
Content license
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Wikipedia Guide to Notability

Transcription

Similar documents

Lessons of the Kobayashi Maru: If You`re Not Cheating

A new book

Natural Language Processing! and Text Visualization

The musical articles of the Italian Wikipedia and the common

Hackers and philosophers building an utopia together - BecHa

UCHUG Monthly DriveLight - Under the Computer Hood Users Group

Countries and Continents of the World: A Visual Model

Humor - Intermediate 2 ALP at OSU