User:Snthdiueoa/Source test
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: If an article can not be rewritten to more than just a stub using exclusively reliable, published secondary sources, it should be deleted. |
Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
However, there is much discussion as to how much coverage is required: there does not seem to be much consensus as to what constitutes "significant coverage"; inclusionists and deletionists will have different opinions on the subject. In practice, the amount of coverage needed for an article to survive an AfD discussion is surprisingly small. Articles such as Wrong Planet and Phoenix (computer) have survived with as few as two or three reliable secondary sources, and the article on the Whitespace esoteric programming language survived AfD despite having no secondary sources whatsoever presented.
Notability is a guideline rather than a policy: it has the general consensus of the Wikipedia community, and as such it can be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. However, underlying the concept of notability are certain policies, in particular, verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not.
Therefore, despite the ambiguity in what constitutes "significant coverage," it is possible to formulate an absolute minimum standard from policy on what should be required for inclusion.
The test
[edit]It must be possible to rewrite the article from the ground up based exclusively on reliable secondary sources. If the resultant article would be no more than a stub, or a dictionary definition, or a news item, or something else defined in what Wikipedia is not, it should be deleted.
This means that any unsourced content or content based on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria should be excluded. We also exclude press releases and other sources associated with the subject itself, or where a conflict of interest can be shown, as well as sources that do not directly address the subject concerned, even if they are about another, related subject. (Notability is not inherited.)
The result should be based entirely on the reliable sources that we have remaining. It must be more than just a stub, and it must not be merely a dictionary definition, or a news item, or anything else in what Wikipedia is not.
If this is not possible, the article should be deleted.
Passing the source test is necessary, not sufficient
[edit]Passing the source test indicates that an article is capable of meeting Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. It should therefore be viewed as a necessary condition for inclusion, and a minimum standard that all articles have to meet in order to be considered notable.
Debating AfDs
[edit]It is not possible to state conclusively that reliable sources for a topic do not exist. However, Wikipedia does require that all content must be verifiable. For this reason, the onus must be on those presenting "keep" nominations to demonstrate that such sources do exist, that they are indeed reliable, and that they cover the subject in sufficient depth to pass the source test.