[[Category:Wikipedia wp:n
wp:nn
wp:notes|Notability]]

It has been suggested that User:Uncle G/On notability be merged into this page or section. (Discuss)

Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability, importance, or significance in order for an article on that topic to remain on Wikipedia:

• In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources.
• In order to have a neutral article with minimal errors, a topic must be notable enough that there will be non-partisan editors interested in editing it.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

The guidelines in the table on the right have been created, or are under discussion, to set out more precisely what these thresholds should be in certain areas. They generally assert that a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself.

One notability criterion that nearly all of the guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is notTemplate:Fn, share is a criterion that a subject must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This criterion enjoys a broad base of support by many Wikipedians.

• What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad, including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies.
• The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable).Template:Fn
• Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject.Template:Fn

Wikipedians deal with subjects that fail to satisfy the notability criteria in two ways: article merger and article deletion. Which route is appropriate depends from how the subject fails to satisfy the criteria, in particular how the subject fails to satisfy the primary criterion mentioned above.

Subjects can fail to satisfy the criteria because although there is verifiable, non-directory, information on them, the published works that discuss them are trivial. In other words: Exclusive of any mere directory-type information, the subject only gets very superficial treatment, or tangential mention in discussions of a different, main, topic that is the actual focus of the work. A full, sourced, freestanding encyclopedia article on the subject cannot thus be built. One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, creating such articles if they don't already exist.Template:Fn (For related issues, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Content forking, and Wikipedia:Summary style.)

Subjects can fail to satify the criteria because although published works exist, none of them are independent of the subject. In other words: If all autobiographical sources are excluded, an encyclopaedia article on the subject cannot be built. from Wikipedians usually deal with such articles by nominating them for deletion, via Proposed Deletion, Articles for Deletion, where the article's merits are discussed, or (in the specific cases of articles on the topics of a person, a group of people, a band, a company, a club, or a website that does not even assert the notability of that topic) Speedy Deletion.Template:Fn (For related issues see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Independent sources.)

Subjects can of course not be the subjects of any published works at all, in which case they are simply unverifiable. Wikipedians deal with such articles by nominating them for deletion.

There are several things are commonly conflated with notability, or that notability is sometimes erroneously thought to be.

Notability does not equate to "I've heard of it."/"I've never heard of it." or "I think that it is notable."/"I don't regard it as being notable.". A Wikipedian who judges an article based upon those subjective criteria is not employing a notability criterion. None of the notability guidelines contain any such criteria.

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. As is the case in other aspects, when it comes to notability Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in the world. The notability of a subject is not judged by Wikipedia editors themselves. It is judged by the world at large. A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable.

The application of the aforementioned primary notability criterion allows Wikipedian to determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Thus by applying the primary criterion Wikipedians determine whether a subject is notable not by considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject.

There are (and have been) several proposals to alter the status quo, or essays discussing various points of view on the issue such as:

• User:Uncle G/On notability An essay on the necessity of considering notability to determine inclusion or exclusion of articles. This essay offers objective criteria for determining notability in the context of Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments A list of arguments for both application and non-application of notability.
• Wikipedia:Non-notability, a rejected proposal reflecting the viewpoints of those who believe that only content policies should be used in regard to whether "non-notable" subjects should be included in Wikipedia.
• User:Daduzi/Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Point_of_view An essay arguing against the use of subjective criteria such as "I like it." and "I don't like it.".

• Template:Fnb i.e. "has been featured in several external sources" — "featured" and "several" corresponding to "non-trivial" and "multiple"
• Template:Fnb The rationale for this is that self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
• Template:Fnb Two examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are non-trivial. Whereas the 1 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 trivial.
• Template:Fnb Some examples:
  • Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) recommends that indivdual articles on minor characters in a work of fiction (i.e. characters that only get tangential mention or very superficial treatment in the published works discussing the work of fiction) be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." article.
  • Wikipedia:Notability (schools) recommends that indivdual articles on (non-commercial) schools where there are no non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself be merged into articles on the geographical localities where the schools are, or into articles on the school districts, education authorities, or other umbrella school organizations that are appropriate.
  • Mediocre relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event.
  • An article on band that doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria, such as the garage band that John Kerry used to play in, is merged into John Kerry.
• Template:Fnb That the use of notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedians have been known to frown on nominations that have been inadequately researched.