Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Notability

In Wikipedia, notability is a key editorial guideline used to determine whether a particular topic warrants its own standalone article. A subject is generally considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, demonstrating its prominence or importance beyond trivial mention. This criterion helps ensure that Wikipedia remains a high-quality encyclopedia by focusing on topics of enduring interest and verifiable significance, rather than exhaustive coverage of every minor event or entity. Notability is distinct from verifiability, which requires all content to be supported by reliable sources, but presumes the existence of sufficient sources for inclusion as a separate article. It applies across various subject areas, with general and specific guidelines to assess relevance in fields like biographies, organizations, and events.

Core Principles

General Notability Guideline

The General Notability Guideline (GNG) serves as the foundational criterion for determining notability on Wikipedia, establishing that a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^[1] This baseline test applies across all topics unless overridden by more specific criteria, ensuring that Wikipedia focuses on subjects of broad interest and encyclopedic value rather than trivial or promotional content.^[2] Key elements of the GNG include "significant coverage," which requires in-depth treatment beyond mere mentions or routine announcements, such as detailed analysis or profiles that provide substantial information about the subject.^[1] "Reliable sources" refer to established outlets with editorial oversight, including major newspapers like The Washington Post, academic journals, or books from reputable publishers, which ensure factual accuracy and neutrality.^[1] "Independent" sources must lack affiliation with the subject, excluding press releases, self-published materials, advertisements, or user-generated content from forums and social media.^[2] Multiple such sources are typically needed to demonstrate sustained attention, though the exact number depends on the depth and diversity of coverage.^[1] In practice, the GNG is applied to affirm notability for individuals through comprehensive profiles in leading publications that explore their achievements or impact, or for companies via analytical reports in financial media assessing their market role and innovations.^[1] Conversely, brief listings in event calendars or superficial news items do not suffice, as they fail to provide the required depth or independence.^[2] Subject-specific guidelines supplement the GNG by offering tailored thresholds for domains like biographies or organizations, but they must align with its core principles.^[1] The GNG emerged from community discussions in the mid-2000s and was formalized around 2006–2007 through consensus-building processes on Wikipedia's talk pages and deletion debates, reflecting the site's need to manage rapid growth while maintaining quality standards.^[2]

Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines

Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) establish tailored criteria for presuming the notability of topics within distinct categories, such as biographies of people, organizations, geographical places, creative works, and events, thereby complementing broader standards by addressing unique sourcing challenges in each domain.^[3] These guidelines create a presumption of notability when specific thresholds are met, allowing topics to qualify for dedicated entries even if they do not fully align with universal requirements, though the general notability guideline serves as the ultimate fallback for evaluation.^[3] For academics, SNGs emphasize significant contributions and impact within the discipline, as shown by criteria such as holding a university professor position, receiving notable awards, or having substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources.^[4] In the realm of music, notability for musicians or ensembles is presumed through achievements such as chart placements on national music charts, gold or higher certifications for records, receipt of major awards like the Grammy, or release of multiple albums on major labels.^[5] For creative works like films, criteria focus on critical reviews and substantial coverage in reliable sources, often verified through databases like IMDb that demonstrate entity salience and independent attention.^[3] Regarding organizations and companies, SNGs highlight thresholds such as public stock listings, involvement in significant mergers or acquisitions, or substantial independent coverage in secondary sources.^[3] For web content, inclusion in established directories or demonstration of sustained independent coverage in reliable sources can establish notability, though self-published materials are generally insufficient.^[3] Other major SNGs include those for geographical places, which prioritize official recognition or historical significance covered in multiple sources, and for events, which require widespread media attention beyond routine reporting. SNGs interact with the general notability guideline by providing domain-specific shortcuts to presumptive inclusion, where meeting the criteria implies the existence of adequate reliable, independent sources; however, failure to meet SNGs does not preclude notability if the general standard is satisfied through significant coverage.^[3] These guidelines have evolved since the mid-2000s, emerging from community discussions to refine inclusion processes for specialized subjects and mitigate inconsistencies in source availability across fields.

Scope and Limitations

Applicability to Article Content and Lists

Notability criteria in encyclopedic editing serve to evaluate whether an entire subject or theme merits a dedicated standalone article or list, based on the availability of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. These criteria do not extend to regulating the inclusion of individual facts, minor details, or non-notable elements within a larger article on a broader notable topic, as long as such content is relevant to the topic and verifiable through credible sources. This separation allows encyclopedias to offer detailed, contextual information without requiring every mentioned aspect to independently satisfy notability thresholds.^[6]^[3] For stand-alone lists, notability is assessed at the level of the list's overall theme or grouping rather than each entry individually. A list qualifies if its central concept demonstrates sufficient significance, such as through established cultural, historical, or academic importance, enabling the compilation of related items even if some lack standalone notability. For instance, a list of actors in Indian cinema can be maintained as notable due to the industry's prominence, incorporating both highly covered figures and lesser-known ones supported by reliable data sources like film databases.^[3] Examples illustrate this applicability clearly. A person who plays a minor but verifiable role in a notable event—such as a cleaning staff member discovering key evidence in a high-profile case—may not warrant their own article due to insufficient independent coverage, yet their involvement can be appropriately detailed in the article on the event itself. Conversely, indiscriminate lists, such as exhaustive rosters of all attendees or graduates from an institution without selective curation or contextual significance, typically fail notability standards unless framed by reliable sources that establish their encyclopedic value.^[7]^[6] Boundaries and exceptions reinforce that notability focuses on structural decisions for articles and lists, not ancillary elements. Incidental or peripheral mentions within a notable list are permissible if they align with the list's verified theme, without subjecting each to a separate notability evaluation. Similarly, components like images, tables, or infoboxes embedded in articles are not evaluated for notability; their inclusion depends solely on relevance and verifiability to enhance the article's overall utility.^[6] This framework links to broader encyclopedic policies that prioritize selective, meaningful coverage over exhaustive aggregation, ensuring resources focus on topics with demonstrated impact while accommodating verifiable details that enrich understanding. Encyclopedias thus maintain an inclusive yet discerning scope, avoiding the pitfalls of becoming mere repositories of unfiltered data.^[6]

Distinction from Sourcing and Verifiability

Notability in encyclopedias refers to the inherent significance of a topic, assessed by the existence of substantial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, rather than the quality or completeness of citations within an existing article. This principle ensures that topics warrant standalone entries based on their demonstrated impact or attention in the broader world, independent of how well an article is currently written or sourced. In contrast, verifiability pertains to the requirement that all specific claims and information in an article must be attributable to reliable sources, emphasizing the accuracy and support for individual statements rather than the topic's overall eligibility for inclusion.^[8]^[9] The distinction becomes clear when considering that a topic's notability is presumed if suitable sources exist externally, even if an article lacks citations at the time of evaluation; verifiability, however, demands that sources be provided inline to back up content as it develops. For instance, an article on a physicist like Donna Strickland was initially declined due to insufficient prior significant coverage establishing notability, despite the potential for verifiable details from her work, until her Nobel Prize provided the necessary independent sourcing. Conversely, a well-cited entry on a trivial local event, such as a minor community festival, might be removed for failing notability thresholds, as it lacks broader, enduring significance in secondary sources, even if its descriptions are fully verifiable.^[8]^[3] This separation has practical implications for editorial processes: content within a notable article should not be excised solely for poor sourcing, as notability protects the topic's right to exist while verifiability guides ongoing improvements through added references. A common misconception arises when unsourced articles are equated with non-notability; in reality, notability hinges on the availability of independent sources to substantiate the topic's significance, allowing time for editors to locate and incorporate them without immediate deletion.^[9]^[8]

Temporal and Evidentiary Requirements

Requirement for Verifiable, Independent Sources

The requirement for verifiable, independent sources forms the cornerstone of establishing notability in encyclopedic works, ensuring that topics receive objective, in-depth treatment beyond mere existence or self-promotion. Suitable sources must consist of multiple reliable secondary sources—such as scholarly articles, books, or reputable journalistic publications—that offer significant, non-trivial coverage of the subject, analyzing its importance, influence, or context rather than routine mentions. Primary sources, including official websites, press releases, or self-published accounts, cannot suffice alone, as they typically reflect the subject's own perspective without external validation or critical analysis.^[10] Independence is a critical criterion, mandating that sources have no financial, ideological, or personal affiliation with the subject to avoid bias; for instance, company blogs, promotional materials, or affiliated media outlets are excluded, while unaffiliated scholarly or journalistic works qualify if they demonstrate depth through analysis or evaluation. This independence ensures the coverage reflects broader societal or academic recognition, with the depth required being substantial—focusing on interpretive discussion rather than factual listings or announcements. In practice, encyclopedic editors prioritize sources that contribute to objective scholarship, drawing from expert-reviewed materials to maintain neutrality and accuracy. In assessing notability, the existence of such sources serves as a prerequisite, with editors or contributors using tools like academic databases (e.g., Google Scholar or JSTOR) and news archives (e.g., ProQuest or LexisNexis) to verify availability and quality before inclusion. Without this foundation, a topic fails to meet encyclopedic standards, as the goal is to document enduring significance rather than transient or self-generated claims. For example, a detailed book review in The New York Times analyzing an author's work would count toward notability due to its independent, analytical coverage, whereas a single tweet from the author or a routine birth announcement in a local paper would not, lacking depth and external perspective.^[11] These requirements align with broader editorial guidelines for reliable sources, emphasizing secondary materials that provide context and verification, and for independent sources that uphold impartiality in reference works. Routine news coverage, such as event listings or standard announcements, is insufficient unless it demonstrates unusual significance through multiple, in-depth accounts.^[12]

Permanence and Duration of Public Attention

Notability in encyclopedic contexts demands that a topic demonstrate sustained public attention rather than transient or ephemeral interest, ensuring inclusion only for subjects of enduring significance. This principle underscores that mere temporary popularity, such as from publicity stunts or short-lived trends, does not suffice; instead, reliable sources must provide ongoing, in-depth coverage over an extended period to affirm a topic's lasting merit. For instance, notability is characterized as the capacity to draw attention based on inherent value across a sustained timeframe, with the subject as the central focus of multiple independent outlets.^[13] The duration of this attention lacks a rigid threshold and is evaluated case by case, but it generally requires consistent engagement from sources spanning months to years to establish depth and persistence. Ephemeral phenomena, like viral memes or social media sensations, often fail this test unless they prompt deeper, lasting analysis in credible media, as social media buzz alone cannot verify independence or reliability. A representative example is a TikTok creator whose fame peaks briefly but fades without broader recognition, contrasting with figures achieving long-term impact through repeated scholarly or journalistic examination.^[14]^[13] Historical events illustrate how notability can emerge retrospectively, as initial coverage evolves into sustained scholarship that highlights ongoing relevance, building a body of evidence over decades. In music, a one-hit wonder artist may initially garner attention but lacks notability if subsequent sources do not explore career trajectory or cultural legacy, emphasizing the need for multifaceted, time-spanning documentation. Challenges persist with digital-era trends, such as the 2021 NFT surge, where explosive early media interest waned post-hype, with market sales dropping from $25 billion in 2021 to approximately $4 billion in 2025 (as of November 2025).^[15]^[16] As of 2025, AI-driven virality complicates assessments, amplifying short-term buzz through algorithms but often lacking the verifiable depth from traditional sources.

Practical Application

Deciding on Standalone Articles

In encyclopedias, the decision to create or retain a standalone article hinges on whether the topic demonstrates sufficient independent significance, typically assessed through the availability of substantial, reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth analysis beyond mere mention. If a topic satisfies general notability criteria—such as enduring scholarly interest and multiple independent references—or aligns with subject-specific thresholds like impact on a field or cultural relevance, it warrants its own entry to allow for comprehensive coverage without dilution in a broader context. For instance, in philosophical reference works, entries are deemed suitable for standalone treatment when they address core issues with broad appeal to scholars and general readers, supported by primary and secondary literature that enables a self-contained exploration. Subtopics may merit separation if they exhibit independent notability, such as a specific historical event within a larger war, provided it has its own body of dedicated scholarship; otherwise, it remains integrated into the parent entry. Merging occurs when a topic lacks the depth or autonomy for independent treatment but offers relevant details that enhance a related article, ensuring encyclopedic efficiency and avoiding fragmentation. Criteria for merging include insufficient standalone sourcing or overlap with a more established subject, where the information can be incorporated as a subsection or linked reference without losing context—for example, a minor figure in a literary work might be folded into the primary article on the novel if coverage is limited to contextual mentions rather than focused biographies. In historical encyclopedias focused on regional topics, non-notable elements like ancillary events are routinely integrated into core entries on places or periods to maintain narrative coherence, with editorial review confirming the fit. Redirects serve as provisional measures for topics with potential but underdeveloped content, such as emerging cultural phenomena, directing readers to a related established article until sufficient evidence accumulates for expansion. Stubs, brief placeholders, are permissible for clearly notable subjects where notability is evident from sources but detailed writing is pending, allowing gradual development through peer-reviewed contributions. In academic encyclopedias, such as those in philosophy, stubs evolve into full entries only after verifying scholarly permanence, with supplements used for technical sub-details to preserve the main article's focus. Representative examples illustrate these decisions: a regionally significant festival, like those documented in state historical encyclopedias for their cultural impact, receives a dedicated page due to localized scholarly coverage, whereas a celebrity's transient scandal typically redirects to the individual's biography unless it generates sustained, independent analysis in reputable outlets. In scientific or humanities contexts, an album by a band might stand alone if it influences genre development with critical reception, contrasting with a mere discography listing integrated into the artist's profile. The process involves editorial assessment, often through section editors or boards, with disputes resolved via structured discussions akin to peer review to evaluate sourcing and relevance, always presuming good faith among contributors to foster collaborative improvement.

Handling Non-Notable Topics

In collaborative online encyclopedias, topics that fail notability criteria are managed through structured procedures to maintain content quality and focus on verifiable significance. These processes vary slightly across projects but generally prioritize rapid removal for egregious cases, community review for ambiguous ones, and integration where possible to avoid unnecessary loss of information. Notability failures are often confirmed by the absence of reliable, independent sources, as established in analyses of deletion discussions.^[17]^[18] For blatant non-notable or problematic content, such as hoaxes, advertisements, or copyright violations, speedy deletion allows administrators to remove articles immediately without debate, ensuring swift cleanup of low-value or harmful material.^[17] Proposed deletion targets uncontroversially non-encyclopedic topics, nominating them for a brief seven-day period during which authors or others can contest by adding sources or improvements; uncontested items are then deleted.^[17] Borderline cases, where notability is debated, proceed to articles for deletion (AfD) processes, involving community arguments over approximately seven days to achieve consensus on outcomes like deletion, with notability cited as the decisive factor in about 70% of such debates.^[17]^[18] Merging and redirection serve as alternatives to outright deletion for non-notable elements, relocating useful details to related notable articles or creating permanent redirects for commonly searched terms that lack standalone coverage.^[17] This approach preserves encyclopedic value, as seen in variations across Wikimedia language versions where French and Swedish projects explicitly encourage merging to integrate content into broader contexts.^[18] Exceptions apply when non-notable topics contribute meaningfully elsewhere; for example, content adding sourced details to an existing notable page is not deleted but relocated, and user-generated lists may be retained if backed by independent verification.^[17] During AfD, articles hovering near notability thresholds can be salvaged through on-the-spot enhancements, such as adding references, leading to "keep" outcomes in approximately 24% of cases. Illustrative cases include the unanimous deletion of promotional entries like "RobApps," treated as spam due to insufficient independent sourcing, and the retention of biographies like "William Vickers (fiddler)" after improvements demonstrated emerging notability.^[17] Self-published works, such as books without external reviews, are routinely deleted for failing source-based notability.^[17] Similarly, minor events in domains like sports are merged into parent league or organizational articles when they lack distinct coverage, prioritizing comprehensive over fragmented treatment.^[17] The handling of non-notable topics in the 2020s remains an evolving area, with limited scholarly attention to fringe claims such as hoaxes and pseudoscience, which may require expanded guidelines to counter misinformation amid organizational inertia in updating processes.^[18]

Underlying Rationale

Purpose of Notability Criteria

The notability criteria in collaborative encyclopedias like Wikipedia serve primarily to ensure comprehensive yet finite coverage of human knowledge by prioritizing topics that have garnered significant attention and documentation, thereby preventing the platform from devolving into an indiscriminate repository of trivial or ephemeral information.^[19] This approach addresses the practical limitations of digital resources, such as server costs and editorial bandwidth, even in an environment with theoretically unlimited space, by focusing contributions on subjects worthy of sustained encyclopedic treatment.^[20] By establishing thresholds based on substantial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, these criteria maintain the encyclopedia's role as a curated summary of notable achievements and events rather than a exhaustive archive.^[21] The benefits of notability guidelines extend to upholding overall quality and sustainability, as they direct limited volunteer efforts toward well-verified topics, enhancing verifiability and neutrality across entries.^[4] This focus facilitates global accessibility by emphasizing enduring significance over fleeting trivia, allowing the encyclopedia to serve as a reliable reference without overwhelming users or editors with low-value content.^[20] Furthermore, by requiring diverse, independent perspectives from established sources, the criteria align with core principles like the neutral point of view, ensuring balanced representation and mitigating biases that could arise from uneven coverage.^[22] Historically, notability guidelines emerged in the early 2000s amid heated inclusionist-deletionist debates, where inclusionists favored broad openness to foster contributions on any topic, while deletionists advocated for stricter standards to preserve credibility and manage growth.^[19] This tension, often framed as a "battle for Wikipedia's soul," evolved into a consensus-driven balance between expansive participation and sustainable quality control, reflecting the shift from Wikipedia's nascent, laissez-faire phase to a more structured governance model as article volume surged.^[20] On a broader scale, these criteria counter vanity publishing and self-promotion by disqualifying topics reliant solely on primary or affiliated sources, thus safeguarding the encyclopedia from promotional abuse and reinforcing its commitment to impartial knowledge dissemination.^[7] Community consensus on notability remains dynamic, with regular reviews through forums like the village pump, leading to ongoing refinements without major overhauls as of 2025.^[23] This iterative process underscores the guidelines' role in adapting to evolving information landscapes while upholding foundational encyclopedic objectives.^[21]

Common Misconceptions and Scenarios

One prevalent misconception in applying notability criteria involves self-promotion, where individuals or organizations attempt to create or edit articles to highlight their own achievements without independent verification. Wikipedia explicitly prohibits paid or conflict-of-interest edits, as these undermine the encyclopedia's neutrality and reliability; for instance, companies often draft unsourced pages relying on press releases or self-published materials, which fail to meet the requirement for independent, third-party sources like newspapers or books. Such attempts frequently result in article deletions, as seen in cases where promotional content is flagged and removed by editors enforcing strict independence standards.^[13]^[24] Regarding events, a common error is assuming that any occurrence merits coverage simply because it happened, overlooking the need for significant, sustained impact. Routine accidents or incidents, such as local traffic collisions or minor crimes, are generally non-notable unless they generate widespread media attention or demonstrate broader societal effects, as they lack the depth and diversity of coverage required. In contrast, major disasters like the September 11 attacks qualify due to their global scale, extensive independent reporting, and enduring historical significance, illustrating how notability hinges on verifiable impact rather than mere newsworthiness.^[25]^[13] Stand-alone lists present another frequent pitfall, where editors compile trivia or unframed enumerations without establishing a notable context, leading to their rejection as "listicles." Acceptable lists, such as those cataloging asteroids or other astronomical phenomena, succeed when they are well-sourced, organized under a broader notable theme, and supported by reliable references that justify their encyclopedic value, rather than serving as indiscriminate collections of minor details. Non-notable subjects unsuitable for individual articles may occasionally appear in such lists if they contribute to verifiable overviews, but the list itself must demonstrate overall significance.^[13] Fringe topics, including pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, often confuse contributors who believe anecdotal evidence or self-published claims suffice for inclusion. These require exceptional sourcing from multiple reliable, independent secondary sources to achieve notability, with integration of policies like due weight to ensure balanced representation without undue prominence. For example, alternative medicine topics labeled as pseudoscience, such as certain acupuncture claims, face heightened scrutiny and editor bias toward scientific consensus, demanding robust third-party validation to avoid deletion or marginalization.^[26]^[13] A broader misconception equates transient fame with notability, as seen with reality TV stars who gain brief popularity but lack sustained, in-depth coverage in reputable outlets. Such figures may not qualify for standalone articles unless independent media provides significant analysis of their cultural or professional impact, emphasizing that notability prioritizes verifiable merit over momentary celebrity. Similarly, social media influencers in the post-TikTok era, like those with millions of followers, frequently encounter deletion nominations because platform metrics alone do not count; cases such as TikTok creator Bella Poarch's page, which survived only after accruing mainstream press, highlight the ongoing tension.^[14]^[27] In practice, editors are advised to begin assessments by searching reliable databases and news archives for sources, assuming good faith in contributions while rigorously verifying claims against independence and reliability standards to mitigate these errors. This routine approach helps distinguish viable topics from promotional or insufficiently documented ones, fostering a more accurate encyclopedia.^[28]^[14]

References

[1]
NOTABILITY | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
the state of being important and deserving attention, because of being very good or interesting: A restaurant has to have sufficient notability to be included ...
[2]
NOTABILITY Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
Notability definition: the state or quality of being notable; distinction; prominence.. See examples of NOTABILITY used in a sentence.
[3]
Notability Definition & Meaning - YourDictionary
The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice. American Heritage. A person who is notable or prominent. Webster's New World. Similar definitions.<|control11|><|separator|>
[4]
NOTABILITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Sep 17, 2025 · The meaning of NOTABILITY is a notable or prominent person.
[5]
NOTABILITY definition in American English - Collins Dictionary
2 senses: 1. the state or quality of being notable 2. a distinguished person; notable.... Click for more definitions.
[6]
notability, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English ...
There are five meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun notability, two of which are labelled obsolete. See 'Meaning & use' for definitions, usage, and ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[7]
notability - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Noun · (uncountable) The quality or state of being notable or eminent. · (countable) A notable or eminent person or thing. · Locally eminent people; the ...
[8]
Identifying Notable News Stories - PMC - NIH
A common approach to measure notability of a news event is to track it through a proxy metric. For example, Naseri et al. [7] decide whether an article ...
[9]
Breaking: 3B Media News & Obituaries Today - umn.edu »
Definition of “Notable”. The term “notable” is subjective, varying according to the media outlet's target audience and editorial focus. · Impact on News Coverage.
[10]
Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia - Francesca Tripodi, 2023
### Summary of Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (GNG) from https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211023772
[11]
[PDF] Democracy in Wikipedia - R. Stuart Geiger
community consensus model upon which Wikipedia was based while acknowledging that the ... "Wikipedia: Notability.‖ Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, 18 Apr 2007.
[12]
[PDF] Notability Determination for Wikipedia - Wiki Workshop
Apr 7, 2017 · Notability of a named entity depends on various factors like subject-specific guidelines, neutral point of view, verifi- ability, etc as ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
[13]
The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative ... - EPJ Data Science
Wikipedia notability guidelines for academics suggest that the encyclopedia should only cover the researchers who have 'made significant impact in their ...
[14]
How should the music industry engage with Wikipedia?
Apr 16, 2018 · Here are the notability guidelines for musicians to have a Wikipedia page: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers ...Missing: encyclopedias | Show results with:encyclopedias
[15]
How Do You Qualify for a Wikipedia Page? - Wikiconsult
Feb 18, 2025 · Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on strict criteria, which have been gradually developed by the community and continue to evolve.
[16]
[PDF] Investigating Deletion in Wikipedia Bluma S. Gelley Polytechnic ...
Jan 11, 2013 · For a site with extremely detailed notability guidelines, Wikipedia is not doing enough to communicate even the most basic concept of notability ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[17]
The arguments for Wikipedia's notability guideline don't hold up.
Mar 1, 2007 · The open-source online reference work ought to abandon its “ notability guideline,” which says that an encyclopedia entry on a particular topic is ineligible ...Missing: specific | Show results with:specific<|control11|><|separator|>
[18]
Seeing the world like Wikipedia – What you should know about how ...
Nov 18, 2021 · Finally, Notability governs “what counts” for inclusion as a Wikipedia article and requires multiple reliable sources on a topic before a topic ...
[19]
[PDF] Authority and Authorship in a 21st-Century Encyclopaedia and a ...
The differences in the two organizations' arguments from authority reflect a tension in epistemic values that has been aggravated by the. World Wide Web. While ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[20]
Preface - YIVO Encyclopedia
LIMITS, PARAMETERS, AND CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION. The YIVO Encyclopedia is a reference work and for that reason it is alphabetically arranged. Given the ...<|separator|>
[21]
Accuracy in journalism - Media Helping Media
A news journalist's job is to uncover facts that can be verified and attributed to trusted sources. They should not deal in rumour or speculation.Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
[22]
What the Codes Say: Code provisions by subject
The good news organization is fair, accurate, responsible, independent and decent. Truth is its guiding principle. – Associated Press Media Editors. The mission ...Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
[23]
Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Explained
Aug 3, 2025 · To create a Wikipedia page, a subject must meet notability guidelines. Notability differs from popularity. Notability means attracting sustained, significant ...
[24]
Understanding Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for Individuals
Dec 11, 2024 · Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines are a set of rules and criteria used to determine whether a topic or individual is eligible for inclusion in ...
[25]
The Decline of NFTs and the Resurgence of Tangible Collectibles in ...
Sep 3, 2025 · - NFT market sales plummeted from $25B (2021) to $608.6M (2025), contrasting tangible collectibles' 7.4% CAGR growth to $496.2B by 2025.
[26]
https://www.legalmorning.com/wikipedias-most-controversial-and-difficult-topics-to-edit/
[27]
[PDF] Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes
ABSTRACT. Deletion of articles is a common process in Wikipedia, in order to ensure the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Yet, there is a.Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
[28]
(PDF) Variation in Strategies for Deleting Unusable Content Across ...
The article presents an analysis of the procedures for removing articles and the discourse on deleting content conducted among active users of the ten largest ...
[29]
The case of inclusionists versus deletionists
This paper, using the Wikipedia case as a point of departure and building upon the conflict between inclusionists and deletionists, tries to identify and draw ...
[30]
The battle for Wikipedia's soul - The Economist
Mar 8, 2008 · Inclusionists believe that the disparity between Pokémon and Solidarity biographies would disappear by itself, if only Wikipedia loosened its ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[31]
[PDF] Beyond notability. Collective deliberation on content inclusion in ...
In this study we aim to analyse Article for Deletion discussions as a complex form of collective decision-making bearing on the maintenance of quality standards ...
[32]
The Bias of Notability in Wikipedia - UC Berkeley Library Update
Jan 9, 2025 · Wikipedia's policies means it reproduces institutionalized biases related to gender, community groups, and other categories of identity and knowledge.
[33]
Your Company Probably Doesn't Qualify for a Wikipedia Article
Sep 4, 2024 · ... self-promotion. It's not enough to simply be important; your company must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria to qualify for inclusion.
[34]
[PDF] Wikipedia as a trusted information assessment method during ... - HAL
Apr 3, 2020 · ... routine” events such as accidents or crimes are usually considered ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events). 6 As ...
[35]
Wikipedia's Most Controversial and Difficult Topics to Edit
Jul 9, 2024 · Look up any one of the topics Wikipedia considers pseudoscience. ... Wikipedia Notability Evaluation · Ultimate Backlink Building Course ...
[36]
Wikipedia's Struggle with Creators - by Catherine Yeo
Feb 4, 2022 · But notability, as its own notion, is inherently subjective. Wikipedia has even constructed subject-specific criteria for a range of categories ...<|separator|>
[37]
Understanding Wikipedia Norms - Editing and contributing content ...
Jul 23, 2025 · 'Sources' should generally be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources ...