Wikipedia:Bare notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Is coverage in that local newspaper going to be enough to satisfy the deletionists?

Bare notability refers to when an article seemingly just minimally meets Wikipedia's notability standards. This may be the case when:

  1. The article is presented with very few references and few can be found;
  2. The article has plenty of references, but the references do not support the subject itself but rather pertain only trivially to the subject, or
  3. The "references" provided are not considered valid sources to establishing notability.

Articles that fit one or more of these descriptions may be in danger of deletion. Though the creator or a major contributor may feel s/he did a good enough job of writing the article and providing sources, others may feel differently. Wikipedia's policies collectively are quite complicated, and therefore, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. So a subject being barely notable leaves more room for the deletionists' actions.

Any registered user has the right to propose an article for deletion using the deletion process, and even a non-registered user can place a PROD tag on an unprotected article. It only takes one person to propose an article for deletion. One who is capable of giving good arguments in favor of an article's deletion can be responsible for getting an article deleted, even if the creator feels it should be kept on the basis of the sources provided.

Improving an article with bare notability[edit]

The best ways to prevent an article on a subject with bare notability is to improve it so its notability seems more obvious. A good approach would be to ask yourself, why would anyone want to read about this subject? or, what makes this subject important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Notability must be asserted, bluntly and definitively. The best way to accomplish this is to back up your assertions with reliable sources:

  1. Search the web for more sources on the subject: If a plain Google search does not seem to provide enough sites that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria, try using other forms of searching, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News. It can be exhausting trying to search through hundreds of thousands of GHits for something that may meet these criteria, but narrowing your search may help.
  2. Look off the web: Using books you already own or visiting your local library may produce additional information. A library may hold useful books or periodicals, or be staffed by professionals willing to assist in researching subjects. Many local libraries provide access to online resources such as JSTOR and Project MUSE which require a paid-for licence and so would otherwise be unavailable to users at home. Sources found on the web are often more easily verifiable because they are accessible to anyone with access to the internet, so when an off-web source is used, use references that provide as much bibliographical information as possible.
  3. Look for an expert: Place the {{expert}} tag on top of the page. This may aid in the search for someone who can provide more reliable sources.

If it seems just barely notable, reconsider creating it[edit]

A subject that seems to be "barely notable" may really not be notable at all. It may seem "notable to you" not because you heard of it from reliable sources, but because you know of it some other way.

For example:

See also[edit]