Wikipedia:One hundred words
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: Sources with at least 100 words of coverage of a topic generally constitute significant coverage of that topic.|
At the present time, the general notability guideline provides inadequate guidance as to what level of coverage is significant. The example presently offered (a large book) should obviously not be taken as a minimum standard for significant coverage, as most topics that meet this criterion have not had entire books written about them.
It is therefore suggested that one hundred non-repetitious words, written in more or less continuous prose, in one or more sources, is clearly significant coverage in all cases. This figure is, however, only suggested as a maximum. Fifty such words would likely be significant.
[These numbers were inspired by the length of articles in the New Discovery Encyclopedia (Rainbow Books, 1990), though they are not averages or any other kind of statistic. They roughly correspond with the length of a decent sized paragraph. They also happen to be round numbers.]
- Wikipedia:Extracting the meaning of significant coverage (a close reading of existing guidance)
- Wikipedia:What is significant coverage?
- ^ Publications such as biographical dictionaries are sometimes written in a highly abbreviated language that conveys more information in fewer words. If a source is written in language that looks more like a set of notes than complete sentences, the figures offered in this essay will be too high.