Wikipedia:Notability

WP:NOTE redirects here. You may also be looking for WP:CITE, WP:NOT or Wikipedia:Footnotes

All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.

Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and the quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability.

The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely determine the encyclopedic suitability of a subject.

The notability criterion

A general guideline for notability which is shared by some of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not,Template:Fn is that:

A topic is notable if it has received significantTemplate:Fn coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

• "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content.Template:Fn It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source.
• "Multiple" sources should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.Template:Fn In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
• "Secondary sources" draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. The type of source material that can be used encompasses published works in all forms and media.Template:Fn
• "Independent" excludes works produced by those affilliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.Template:Fn

This is the general criterion, so the converse is not necessarily true. The subject-specific notability guidelines expand on these descriptions and include consensually-reached subject-specific details and interpretations. Some provide specific alternative criteria that still ensure an encyclopedic article may be written about the topic.

This criterion does not deal in the number of sources currently cited in an article, but in the quality of published works that actually exist. The lack of citations in an article does not demonstrate that published works do not exist. Conversely, the existence of one strong source indicates that other published works are likely to exist, but multiple works are still preferred.

Dealing with non-notable topics

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. The most appropriate route depends on how the topic fails to satisfy the criteria, mainly how it fails to satisfy the primary criterion. Articles that may not meet notablity guidelines should be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem and give them a chance to address the issue.

Merging

A topic that is the subject of coverage in one or more sources may still fail to satisfy the notability criteria if that coverage is trivial in nature. Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject.

One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist.Template:Fn

For related issues, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Content forking, and Wikipedia:Summary style.

Deletion

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Template:Fn Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes.Template:Fn

Topics that cannot be substantiated in any published works at all are simply unattributable and should be deleted.

For an indication on what is likely to be kept or deleted in a deletion debate, please see the list of common outcomes of deletion debates. Note, however, that outcomes of prior deletion debates do not supersede the primary notability criterion or the ancillary notability guidelines listed in the section above.

For related issues see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Independent sources.

Rationale for requiring a level of notability

• In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
• In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Notability is not subjective

Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.

General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

Notability is generally permanent

If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.

Other factors that may influence the notability of topics in the context of Wikipedia include the fact that policy and guidelines and consensus can change over time.

Notability is not popularity

Popularity does not by itself render a subject notable, nor does lack of popularity render it non-notable. For example, popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable, but a rather obscure seventeenth-century poet may have substantial coverage in reliable histories qualifying the subject as notable. Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability.

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other Wikipedia's guidelines, such as those on the reliability of sources and trivia. However, list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers.

See also

Essays related to notability:

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - An essay arguing against the use of subjective criteria such as "I like it" and "I don't like it"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes - Summary of common outcomes from AfD discussions giving context to precedents.
• Wikipedia:Independent sources - An essay explaining further why independent sources are needed to write an encyclopedia article.
• Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments - A list of arguments for both application and non-application of notability.

Notes

• Template:Fnb Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says "has been featured in several external sources" — "featured" and "several" corresponding to "subject of non-trivial coverage" and "multiple".
• Template:Fnb "Sufficient" in this context means providing enough information to establish the notability of article's topic. Thus, a large number of sources that some may consider "trivial" (see footnote 3) can possibly establish notability, and likewise for one comprehensive source.
• Template:Fnb Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 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. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
• Template:Fnb Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
• Template:Fnb including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
• Template:Fnb Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works should be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the attributability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
• Template:Fnb Some examples:
  • Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) recommends that individual articles on minor characters in a work of fiction be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." page.
  • Wikipedia:Notability (schools) recommends that individual articles on schools where there are no non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located, or into articles on the school districts, education authorities, or other umbrella school organizations as appropriate.
  • Non-prominent relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event.
  • An article on a band that doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria, such as the garage band that John Kerry used to play in, is merged into John Kerry.
• Template:Fnb In other words, the only discussion of the subject is in published works from sources that are not independent of the subject, such as autobiographies.
• Template:Fnb Wikipedians have been known to frown on nominations that have been inadequately researched.