Wikipedia:Notability (science)
 | The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
Ideas related to science are an important part of any comprehensive encyclopedia. This guideline and its criteria are intended for use in determining whether a topic is notable due to being a part of or related to science. A topic that is acceptable under this guideline is an appropriate part of Wikipedia. However, the failure of a topic to meet this guideline's criteria does not automatically exclude it, as it may attain notability through WP:N itself or another of its subsidiary guidelines.
Notability of topics related to science
This notability guideline derives its relevance from the policies What Wikipedia is not (in particular Not an indiscriminate collection of information and Not a crystal ball), No original research and Neutral point of view (in particular Undue weight and Pseudoscience), as well as the guidelines Conflict of interest and Autobiography. Also of importance are verifiability and reliability policies.
A key element to understanding this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication, and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition. Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community.
Although publication creates verifiability and reputable journals are reliable sources, publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability. Unpublished research fails no original research and often lacks verifiability, so it is unacceptable by policy. Research published in a reputable publication passes these thresholds but reflects the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, focusing on such research in a Wikipedia article does not adequately conform to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, in particular the section on undue weight. This guideline clarifies how the Wikipedia community has applied NPOV to articles on scientific topics. It does however not apply to the inclusion of scientific research as authorative sources within articles. The criterion for such sources is not that they are notable, but that they are reliable.
Criteria
General
In general, a contribution in the field of science is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
- Textbook science. There is a non-incidental mention of the contribution in general or specialized textbooks published by reputable presses.Template:Fn
- Widely cited. Papers covering the contribution have been widely citedTemplate:Fn in its research fieldTemplate:Fn relative to other publications in the same area. Self-citations, and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded.
- Institutional recognition. The scientific contribution received significant institutional recognition. Such recognition might come from a major award, significant research funding, or organization of a conference. The institution involved should be itself notable and independent of the idea's original proponents.
- Prominent advocacy. It is or was advocated by prominent persons, or by notable individuals in the political or religious spheres, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
- Press and fiction. It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being a recurrent theme in notable works of fiction. In this case the article should make note of this status. A single article on the theory, even if from a major media source such as New Scientist or Scientific American, is not a sufficient criterion.
- Historical interest. It has historically met any of the above criteria within the scientific community or the culture at large but has since either been superseded, disregarded, or dismissed by the scientific community or the culture at large. The article should make note of the subject's status in this regard.
- Popular belief. It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be handled as scientific. For example, the Book of Genesis itself is primarily covered as a religious scripture rather than as a cosmology. On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific and religious doctrine, are properly evaluated both on a scientific and theological basis. Similarly, subjects purporting to have a scientific basis may be noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases, such as UFOs, which can usefully be discussed from several different perspectives.
Scientific terms
- See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms
A scientific term is considered notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia if the following can be established:
- A commonly agreed-upon formal or informal definition
- A trajectory of use for the term in the scientific literature from reliable and verifiable sources
To determine notability it is important to keep in mind that different fields sometimes use the same term to describe different concepts. On the other hand, especially in the early stages of a field, terminology is often not standardized and different terms are used for the same concept. The policy on naming conventions gives more information on the choice of the proper term when more than one term is used in the scientific literature.
Notes
Template:Fnb The scientific contribution must have a major entry in the work. A passing mention of the concept is not sufficient.
Template:Fnb Citation counts and peer review mechanisms differ vastly between sciences, fields, and subfields, and editors are urged to inform the relevant WikiProject about ongoing debates to get expert input. It should also be noted that quantity of citations is often only a poor approximation of quality.
Template:Fnb A "research field" indicates an established area of study for which the topic in question is only a part. A topic cannot be its own research field, nor can it gain notability from being part of a field which is non-notable.