Wikipedia:Red flags of non-notability
|This essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the topic of notability. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.|
Those that contribute to numerous WP:AFD discussions, work at WP:CSD, and do similar tasks observe certain recurring characteristics of articles which fail WP:N, particularly biographies. These can be called "Red flags of non-notability", and include things such as:
- An article about a small group written from the group's perspective. Anything containing first person pronouns such as "we" and "us" are almost certainly not notable. If no third party information can be found so all information comes from the subject's perspective, that tells all that no one has bothered to cover the group and it fails notability. Religious, youth, and music groups are most often found in this category. If your religious group can raise the dead, let us know. If your band meets WP:BAND, come back. Until then, you may be great people, love Jesus and make good music, but you don't get an article at Wikipedia.
- A biography with superlatives but without sources. Adjectives such as "well-known", "best", "renowned", "award-winning", "ground-breaking", "unique", "well-liked" are tell-tale signs. Ground breaking means the subject works construction? Award winning means the subject has little trophies given out at the bowling alley? Unique? we're all that so we're told. If the article tells us that Joe Blow is a renowned phrenologist in Foo, perhaps a source would be easily found. However, it usually seems that Joe Blow is best known among Foo's illiterates, because nothing is written about him. Again, failing a notability test. See also: Wikipedia:Peacock terms
- Biographies with titles where the surname is improperly lower case. If the author cannot bother to capitalize the name of his or her subject, why should anyone bother to read it? Typically, these are done in vanity, in haste or in error, which often indicates that the subject is not notable.
- Biographies that violate naming conventions, such as "Dr. Jordan Marsh", "Mistii", or "Mrs. Ruth Less", unless that is the person's full stage name.
- A product article without telling us what the thing does or who makes it. If we don't know what the gizmo does or who makes it, do we even care to find out about anything else? Presumably, anyone who is looking at the gizmo article would want to know what it does, who makes it. Not in a WP:SPAMmy way, but just the facts. Too often, something is described as a solution or solves problems. An article that claims to be a "web solution" says nothing – is it a spider's sticky goo? That too is a "web solution" and just as non-notable.
- Articles about immovable things that don't tell you where they are. If the author cannot tell us where the school, business, tree, park, church, building, etc. is, it's probably no loss to delete the article, because only insiders can make any use of it. "Joe's Pizza was the first pizza parlor." conveys to some a claim of notability, but without a location we should assume that it means "Joe's Pizza was the first pizza parlor [at that precise location – previous businesses being a bike repair shop, beauty parlor, and a brothel perhaps]." and it's non-notability is evident.
- Articles on products which haven't been released and which have only recently been announced, usually for types of media. These articles often have working titles. Sometimes these items may never become actual products and never be previewed or have any impact.