Wikipedia:Notability: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:32, 9 March 2008

This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

General notability guideline

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.^[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.^[2]
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.^[3]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^[4]
"Sources,"^[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[6]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[7]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

Notability requires objective evidence

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note the Wikipedia policy on verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.^[8] Otherwise, if deleting:^[9]

If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
Use the {{prod}} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.

Notability is not temporary

Shortcuts

[[:|WP:N#TEMP]]
WP:NTEMP

If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.^[10] The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage.

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Shortcuts

[[:|WP:NNC]]
WP:N#CONTENT

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ^[11]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.

Notes

^ Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.
^ However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one 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.
^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
^ For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.
^ Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.
^ See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports.
^ See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people

[1] Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.

[2] However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[3] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one 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.

[4] Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.

[5] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[6] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.

[7] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[8] For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.

[9] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[10] See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports.

[11] See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{selfref|"WP:NOTE" redirects here. You may also be looking for [[WP:CITE]], [[WP:NOT]] or [[WP:FOOT]].}}
+{{selfref|"[[WP:NOTE]]" redirects here. You may also be looking for [[WP:CITE]], [[WP:NOT]] or [[WP:FOOT]].}}
+{{subcat guideline|notability guideline|Notability|WP:N|WP:NN}}
-{{Redirect3|WP:RELEVANCE|You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context]] or [[Wikipedia:Relevance of content]]}}
-{{subcat guideline|notability guideline|Notability|WP:N|WP:NN|WP:NOTE}}
 {{nutshell|A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]] [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources]] that are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent]] of the subject.}}
 {{IncGuide}}
@@ Line 7: / Line 6: @@
 These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of '''topics''' for articles but [[#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content|do not directly limit the '''content''' of articles]].  Relevant content policies include: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]], [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]], and [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]].
 == General notability guideline ==
 A '''topic''' is ''presumed'' to be notable if it has received significant coverage in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent]] of the subject.
-* ''"Presumed"'' means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.<ref>Non-notability is a [[rebuttable presumption]] based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a [[negative proof]].</ref> Substantive coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] suggests that the subject is notable.<ref>However, many subjects presumed to be notable ''may still not be'' worthy of inclusion &ndash; they fail [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]], or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].</ref>
+* ''"Presumed"'' means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.<ref>Non-notability is a [[rebuttable presumption]] based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a [[negative proof]].</ref> Substantive coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] suggests that the subject is notable.<ref>However, many subjects presumed to be notable ''may still not be'' worthy of inclusion &ndash; they fail [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]], or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].</ref>
 * ''"Significant coverage"'' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.<ref>Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on [[IBM]] are plainly non-trivial.  The one sentence mention by Walker of the band ''Three Blind Mice'' in a biography of [[Bill Clinton]] ({{cite news|title=Tough love child of Kennedy|author=Martin Walker|date=[[1992-01-06]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html}}) is plainly trivial.</ref>
-* ''"Reliable"'' means sources need editorial integrity to allow [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] evaluation of notability, per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|the reliable source guideline]]. Sources may encompass [[Publication|published]] works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.<ref>Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article.  The published works should be ''someone else'' writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people ''independent'' of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a [[WP:NPOV|neutral article]] can be written &mdash; self-promotion is ''not'' neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] and [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even ''non''-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still ''not'' evidence of notability as they do not measure the ''attention a subject has recieved by the world at large''.</ref>
+* ''"Reliable"'' means sources need editorial integrity to allow [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] evaluation of notability, per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|the reliable source guideline]]. Sources may encompass [[Publication|published]] works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.<ref>Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article.  The published works should be ''someone else'' writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people ''independent'' of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a [[WP:NPOV|neutral article]] can be written &mdash; self-promotion is ''not'' neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] and [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even ''non''-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still ''not'' evidence of notability as they do not measure the ''attention a subject has recieved by the world at large''.</ref>
 * ''"Sources,"''<ref>Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.</ref> defined on Wikipedia as [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources]], provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.<ref>Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.</ref>
 * ''"Independent of the subject"'' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, [[WP:SPS|self-published]] material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.<ref>Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] for handling of such situations.</ref>
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 == Notability requires objective evidence ==
-The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.
+The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note the Wikipedia policy on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]]: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 ==Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines==
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 == <span id="TEMP" />Notability is not temporary ==
-{{shortcut|[[WP:N#TEMP]]}}
+{{shortcut|[[WP:N#TEMP]]|WP:NTEMP}}
-A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.<ref>See [[WP:NOT#IINFO|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports]]. The Wikimedia project [[wikinews:Main page|Wikinews]] does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage.</ref> Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest. Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball|speculation]] that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
+If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball|speculation]] that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
+A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.<ref>See [[WP:NOT#IINFO|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports]].</ref> The Wikimedia project [[wikinews:Main page|Wikinews]] does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage.
 == <span id="CONTENT" />Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content ==
 {{shortcut|[[WP:NNC]]|WP:N#CONTENT}}
-Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a ''separate article'', but do not specifically regulate the ''content of articles'' (other than list articles).  The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring [[WP:V|Verifiability]] and the guidelines covering the use of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and of [[WP:TRIV|trivia sections]].
+Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a ''separate article'', but do not specifically regulate the ''content of articles'' (with the exception of lists of people <ref>See [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people]]</ref>).  The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring [[WP:V|Verifiability]] and the guidelines covering the use of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and of [[WP:TRIV|trivia sections]].
 == See also ==
+{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
 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: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.
-** [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] - An exemplar arguing in favor of specific notability criteria
+** [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] - An argument in favor of specific notability criteria.
-** [[Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay]] - An exemplar of a dissenting view to notability arguments
+** [[Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay]] - A dissenting view to notability arguments.
-** [[User:Hiding/What notability is not]] - An essay on notability within Wikipedia
+** [[User:Hiding/What notability is not]] - An essay on notability within Wikipedia.
+** [[Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Unencyclopedic]] A 2003 discussion on the use of "unencyclopdic" as a term in deletion debates
-<!---* [[Wikipedia:Inherent notability]] - An essay arguing that certain topics have inherent notability ---->
+** [[Wikipedia:Inherent notability]] - An essay arguing that certain topics have inherent notability.
 *[[Wikipedia:Wikiproject|Wikiprojects]] are encouraged to write essays that contain advice and/or opinions on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise.  Such essays are not policies or guidelines, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow their guidance.  A list of such essays can be found in the [[:Category:WikiProject notability essays|WikiProject notability essays]] category.
 == Notes ==
 {{Reflist|2}}
-{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
 <!-- essays and the like should go in the category below, which serves as a general list of 'related issues' -->
@@ Line 72: / Line 74: @@
 [[fr:Wikipédia:Critères d'admissibilité des articles]]
 [[id:Wikipedia:Kelayakan artikel]]
-[[ja:Wikipedia:著名性]]
+[[ja:Wikipedia:特筆性]]
 [[hu:Wikipédia:Nevezetesség]]
 [[lt:Wikipedia:Reikšmingumas]]
@@ Line 78: / Line 80: @@
 [[nl:Wikipedia:Relevantie]]
 [[pl:Wikipedia:Encyklopedyczność]]
+[[pt:Wikipedia:Critérios de notoriedade]]
 [[ru:Википедия:Значимость]]
 [[sl:Wikipedija:Pomembnost]]