| Essay
|
In a nutshell
|
Shortcuts
|
Impact
|
| Alternative outlets
|
There are other places for potentially useful or valuable content which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
|
WP:OUT, WP:ALTOUT, WP:OUTLET, WP:ALTERNATIVE, WP:ALTERNATE
|
Mid
|
| Articles with a single source
|
If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.
|
WP:ONESOURCE, WP:1R
|
Low
|
| Bare notability
|
Be cautious with creating articles that are borderline notable. A subject that seems to be barely notable may really not be notable at all.
|
WP:BARE, WP:MINIMUM
|
Low
|
| Bombardment
|
Don't indiscriminately add excessive references to an article in the hope that weight of numbers will prevent it from being deleted.
|
WP:BOMBARD
|
Mid
|
| Every snowflake is unique
|
Many similar items can have encyclopedic articles of their own; article's content should describe which peculiarities distinguish one item from the others, based on critical commentary found in reliable sources. Focus on quality, not quantity.
|
WP:SNOWFLAKE
|
Mid
|
| Existence ≠ Notability
|
Truth alone is not a valid criteria for inclusion.
|
WP:E=N, WP:ENN, WP:ENEN, WP:EXISTENCE, WP:POPULARITY
|
Low
|
| Fancruft
|
Avoid subjects that are trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans.
|
WP:FAN, WP:CRUFT, WP:FANCRUFT
|
Top
|
| Subjective importance
|
Some subjects may seem notable because they are perceived as being important. By without meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, they are not notable.
|
WP:FACTORS
|
Mid
|
| I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground
|
Biographies must be on subjects that are notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
|
WP:HOLE
|
Low
|
| Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
|
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Inclusion on Wikipedia has no effect on a subject's notability. Non-inclusion does not indicate a lack of notability.
|
WP:INN, WP:ININ
|
Low
|
| Inherent notability
|
Ultimately, the community decides if a subject is intrinsically notable.
|
WP:IHN, WP:INHERENT
|
Low
|
| Insignificant
|
Significance can be subjective. Inclusion on Wikipedia is based on notability, not significance.
|
WP:INSIGNIFICANT
WP:SIGNIFICANT
|
Low
|
| Masking the lack of notability
|
Excellent prose and the sheer number of citations or external links has no effect on a subject's notability.
|
WP:MASK
|
Low
|
| No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
|
When notability is legitimately invoked as an issue in a deletion nomination, the problem usually cannot be solved by better editing.
|
WP:AKON, WP:AMOUNT, WP:OVERCOME
|
Low
|
| No one cares about your garage band
|
Don't start an article on your band if you don't have much of an audience yet.
|
WP:GARAGEBAND, WP:MYSPACEBAND, WP:YAMB
|
Mid
|
| No one really cares
|
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Don't make an article on a subject so trivial or arbitrary that no one could ever conceivably care about it. However, not caring does not always mean not notable.
|
WP:CARES, WP:NOONECARES, WP:DONTGIVEASHIT
|
Low
|
| Notability does not degrade over time
|
Notability of a subject doesn't degrade over time.
|
WP:DEGRADE
|
Low
|
| Notability is important
|
Non-notable subjects cannot be allowed articles because said articles tend to cause more problems than they're worth.
|
WP:NII
|
|
| Notability is not a level playing field
|
Notability is not "a level playing field". In some areas, notability requirements are lower than others.
|
WP:PLAYINGFIELD
|
Low
|
| Notability is not a matter of opinion
|
In a deletion discussion, arguments for keeping the article should be based on reliable sources, not opinions.
|
WP:NMO, WP:NWYB
|
Low
|
| Notability is not relevance or reliability
|
Wikipedia:Notability does not determine article content, or source reliability. It only determines whether or not we will have an entire article about a topic.
|
WP:NREL, WP:NOTREL
|
|
| Notability outranks POV disputes
|
An article that attracts POV pushing can still be notable. This does not mean you should create a POV fork.
|
WP:POVNOTABLE
|
|
| Notability sub-pages
|
Notability guideline sub-pages should only be created if there is a specific need to do so. They should not set an inclusion criteria less restrictive than WP:N. A guideline proposal may contain inclusion criteria that are more restrictive than WP:N, but note that there is currently no consensus regarding these type of criteria.
|
WP:NSUBS, WP:NSP
|
Low
|
| Notability vs. prominence
|
A subject is notable if there are enough reliable sources for an article or a section of an article to be devoted to it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives to include information about an individual idea in rough proportion to how prominent the idea is in the sum total of reliable, third-party sources.
|
|
Low
|
| Obscure does not mean not notable
|
Just because a topic is of little interest to the general public does not mean Wikipedia should not include it. Also when writing articles about obscure topics Wikipedians do not have to consider the general audience.
|
WP:OBSCURE
|
Low
|
| On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else
|
Public relations slang, like "we offer solutions", is a good indication that an article is promotional and likely not notable.
|
WP:SOLUTION
|
|
| Other stuff exists
|
That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, content disputes, and other discussions and will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith. When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.
Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing.
|
WP:OSE
|
Low
|
| Pokémon test
|
The Pokémon test was originally used prior to the merger of most Pokémon into the list of Pokémon, but is analogous to situations where several less-than-notable topics of a common subject matter are merged together. This essay describes the historical context of this test.
|
WP:Pokémon test, WP:PTEST, WP:KIT, WP:KAREN
|
Mid
|
| Red flags of non-notability
|
There are obvious indicators that a subject is unambiguously not notable.
|
WP:RFNN, WP:REDFLAGSOFNONNOTABILITY
|
Low
|
| Run-of-the-mill
|
There are some items that are very commonplace for which sources verifying their accuracy do exist. But there are so many of these that can be verified given the same sources, there cannot possibly be an article on each one, and only those with additional sources deserve articles.
|
WP:MILL
WP:ROTM
WP:COOKIE
|
Mid
|
| Schoolcruft
|
Avoid trivia that is of importance only to a small population of students.
|
WP:SCFT, WP:SCHOOLCRUFT
|
Low
|
| Semi-notability
|
Topics that fall short of meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines but have some coverage are eligible for coverage within an article to the extent they can be verified.
|
WP:SEMI-N
|
Low
|
| Sources must be out-of-universe
|
Because of the nature of writing a fictional universe non-notable concepts can appear to have many, many sources. In reality these sources are all inappropriate because they are not only primary sources, but are not independent of the topic being discussed. Notability should be based on real-life impact.
|
WP:OOUOnly, WP:NSB
|
|
| Too soon
|
Sometimes it's simply just too soon for some topics to have an article.
|
WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTJUSTYET
|
|
| Trivial mentions
|
Notability requires significant coverage by reliable sources. Trivial mentions are not enough.
|
WP:TRIVIALMENTION, WP:ONESENTENCE
|
|
| Two prongs of notability
|
Notability implies two things, that a subject is worthy of note, and that we have the ability to write an encyclopedia article about it in a verifiable manner
|
WP:TWOPRONGS
|
|
| Up and coming next big thing
|
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Future fame has no effect on present notability.
|
WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:NEXTBIGTHING, WP:RISING, WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL
|
Low
|
| Vanispamcruftisement
|
Vanispamcruftisement is a portmanteau comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: vanity (i.e., conflict of interest), spam, cruft, and advertisement.
|
WP:VSCA, WP:VANISPAM
|
Low
|
| What isn't grounds for article deletion:
|
An article should only be deleted if the topic is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If the article is not well-written and doesn't conform to Wikipedia guidelines, it should be revised, not deleted.
|
WP:WIGAD, WP:NOGROUNDS
|
Low
|
| What BLP1E is not
|
WP:BLP1E is a narrow policy that doesn't apply in most cases it's namedropped.
|
WP:NOTBLP1E, WP:NOT1E
|
|
| What notability is not
|
Notability is not objective, permanent, judged in isolation, nor a meritocracy.
|
WP:WNIN, WP:NOPE
|
|
| Who is a low profile individual
|
A low-profile individual is a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought or desired the attention.
|
WP:LOWPROFILE, WP:WIALPI
|
Low
|
| Why can't I advertise my company or product on Wikipedia?
|
Wikipedia is not a site for advertising. Entries must meet the encyclopedia's notability guidelines.
|
|
Low
|
| Why should I care?
|
Assume that others will not improve your article for you. Make sure an article meets Wikipedia's notability, reliable sources, and verification guidelines before creating it.
|
WP:WTH, WP:WSIC
|
Low
|
| Wikipedia doesn't care how many friends you have
|
The number of fans or followers a subject has is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Notability determines if an article is kept.
|
WP:NFRIENDS, WP:NOFRIENDS, WP:NUMFRIENDS
|
|
| Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
|
It is secondary coverage in reliable sources which determines if a topic should be covered by Wikipedia, not how well-intentioned it is.
|
WP:NOBLECAUSE, WP:NOBLE, WP:NOBILITY, WP:WORTHYCAUSE
|
Low
|
| Wikipuffery
|
Don't use unsubstantiated adjectives to exaggerate the notability of an article to prevent deletion.
|
WP:PUFF, WP:LARD
|
Low
|
| Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia
|
Do not add a name to the "notable alumni" section of that person's alma mater unless that person is actually notable.
|
WP:ALMA, WP:ALMAMATER
|
|
