User:Marc Kupper/Notability FAQ

Notice - WP:UP#OWN does not apply to this page. You are free to edit this page as though it were a mainspace article.

This page is a development essay on frequently used issues regarding Wikipedia:Notability.

AFD survival guide

If you have something in mind that can establish that someone or something is notable then simply state the evidence on the AfD page. Most wikipedians want to keep the articles, but only if the subject is notable per [[WP:N]]. For example, an author's book being optioned is a good in that it's at least something though is not the sort of thing that will slam-dunk an article into the "keep" category. You may be interested in Wikipedia:How to save an article proposed for deletion and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

You may be interested in How to save an article proposed for deletion and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

All is not lost

People trying to have an article kept on Wikipedia will certainly sense the time pressure as an article for deletion discussion is under way. However, all is not when an article is deleted. If you later run across solid evidence of notability then post the evidence on your user page so that the admins can see it and and ask that the article be undeleted citing the new evidence. See Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Note that you don't need to first post that solid evidence of notability but it will increase the odds greatly plus it means you'll have the material already set up to instantly drop into the restored article.

Evaluating for notability

I have been trying to develop an objective system for evaluating if a subject is notable. The good part is that it makes it easy for me to measure if something is non-trivial coverage. The bad part is that if an objective standard is published then people will "game the system" an insist something is notable though others, looking at all of the evidence, would conclude that's not the case.

WP:N is frustrating as it says one sentence is plainly trivial coverage and 320 pages is plainly non-trivial coverage. The average English sentence has 15 to 20 words and a page in most books or magazines has 400 words meaning somewhere between 15 and 128,000 words consensus will shift from "trivial" to "non-trivial." I believe that many people consider 400 words (one full page) or more can "address the subject directly in detail." If a work is under 400 words then an editor may been to get more persuasive to develop consensus.

Using word counts as the metric is handy as bibliographic summaries of articles usually state the word count and that if an article is on line you can quickly get its word count. Metrics such as "sentence" and "page" are less reliable as they can change depending on the audience and medium.

Interviews and quotes by the subject

WP:N is empathetic that material qualifying for notability be independent of the subject and that it be "works of their own" that "address the subject directly in detail" by a person writing an article.

This I do not include quotes from the subject or answers to interview questions as part of the word count when checking to see if a work is non-trivial coverage of a subject. For example, an interview generally has a lead written by the interviewer and about the subject. This is likely WP:N qualifying material. I usually to not include the interview questions in the qualifying word count unless I see that they contain a significant amount of information "about" the subject. Thus while a question such as "Would you describe yourself as superstitious?" is the "work of the interviewer" they do not convey any information "about" the subject much less "address the subject directly in detail." The subject's answers are not the interviewer's "own work" and so they do not count either.

Likewise, when a subject is quoted that would not count as a writer's "own work" when checking to see if an article about a person is non-trivial coverage.

Do not discount interviews and quotes entirely. They are evidence that the subject was "noticed" and that the interviewer chose to gave the subject "air time" or "inches of press" in a newspaper, magazine, or book.