This essay, which contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, has been suggested as a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and may contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more editors. Consider these views with discretion.

Shortcuts: WP:ENN WP:ENEN WP:EXISTENCE

This page in a nutshell: Truth alone is not a valid criteria for inclusion

Everyone knows that this speck exists. It isn't notable just because it exists. It is notable because plenty of reliable sources have commented on it. Please follow the notability guidelines and make sure they are verifiable.

"It is not a hoax. It is household vocabulary. We all know what it is. There is plenty of proof that it exists. It had its picture in three local websites. Therefore, it is completely and utterly notable."

Not.

One of the biggest fallacies about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is about everything. When it comes down to Wikipedia's real mission, that is simply not true. Wikipedia is strictly about topics that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Whatever and whoever falls short is not entitled to have an article.

Wikipedia has numerous editors who are just like you, so if something is common, and an article or other content about it on Wikipedia is missing, it is possible that no one thought of creating it before. Then again, there may be a good reason why it is missing. So before you create, think.

Inclusion on Wikipedia for the most part means meeting the general notability guideline, which in a summary, requires there to be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that provide more than just a mere trivial mention. This is the main one, though there are some other inclusion guidelines too.

[edit] Factors that do not automatically render notability

There are many reasons why one may believe something is notable when they are not. In many cases, these have been used in arguments to keep an article proposed for deletion, and they sometimes have worked.

[edit] Age

Tortoises can live a very long time. But that does not make each one notable.

• He is the oldest living person in the country right now.

• This store has been around for 105 years.

• This house was built over 1300 years ago.

Just because its old, that doesn't mean its notable.

Age is just a number, and numbers (other than numbers of sources) are not used to judge notability on Wikipedia. Everything and everyone has an age, and with each passing day, that age is increased by one day. That age will continue to increase as long as the person is alive, or the object still exists. At what time will that person or object be ready for an article?

If a structure that is still standing is thousands of years old, and there is a name put to it, it is likely that there will be multiple independent reliable sources ("MIRS"), about it, though these must be provided in order for the article to be written. But there cannot possibly be an article about every living tortoise or tree on planet earth.

The older something is, the more difficult published sources can be to locate. Sources for subjects that existed before the days of the internet are more likely to be offine. While there is no requirement that sources be available online, they must be verifiable. The more clearly you cite an offline source, the less likely it is to be challenged. Remember, the burden is on the editor adding the material to provide sufficient sources.

[edit] Popularity

• It is the best-selling brand.

• It is a game everyone plays.

• It is a favorite recipe.

There are many things that have reached the status of one of the above examples, yet they have never been covered in any published source, and they are nothing more than word-of-mouth. Word-of-mouth is not only insufficient for Wikipedia notability, it may also be original research.

The are sites, such as Urban Dictionary, that more readily accept entries without proof, taking the word of the submitter as enough to make it plausible. This in theory, can allow anyone to pass off their own creation as something long in existence. But the main point of the notability guideline is not to limit Wikipedia to articles on an elite group of subjects, but to make sure that information that is submitted is accurate and can be written about at a neutral point of view without Wikipedia being the original source of the information.

[edit] Fame

• He has hundreds of friends.

• Her picture is in the local newspaper.

• They performed at Town Square.

• He was on a reality TV show

There are many levels of fame. These include:

• International fame: Refers to those who are known around the world.
• National fame: People who are known within their own country to its own citizens
• Local fame: Where one is an iconic figure within their own city, town, or region, but unheard of beyond. See WP:LOCAL
• Time-bound fame: A person is briefly in the spotlight, but soon forgotten. See WP:ONEEVENT regarding this policy. Includes those who have appeared on Reality TV shows, but otherwise have no coverage.

But notability is not temporary. What this means is that brief coverage that eventually ceases does not render a subject notable. The one event guideline in particular discourages standalone articles for those who only received this brief coverage.

Regardless of the degree of fame, a living person or even a deceased person may only have an article about themselves if they meet notability guidelines for biographies. Brief public exposure or word-of-mouth only fame does not make one notable.

[edit] Talent

What a great work of art! I should write about this on Wikipedia. Or should I?

• He is a really great artist.

• She is a very fast runner.

• They are a tremendous band.

It is nice to have such talent. If you are one of these people, keeping up the hard work may lead you one day to a Wikipedia article. But all too often, one's talent and greatness is a matter of personal taste. Even when measured by statistics (such as the number of home runs one has hit), and this gets recorded, it means nothing in the way of notability unless it gets published.

And even if a statistic is measurable by numbers, being a great feat is still a point-of-view issue. A high school sports star may not be able to score once at a professional level. A child prodigy may not grow up to be very successful. This is just another reason why sources must continue to rule over so-called "talent."

[edit] Rank

• It is the 5th largest Italian restaurant in Bergenshire.

• It is the only elementary school on Sunny Drive.

• It was the first swim club to open within a 2-mile radius of the only convenience store in the neighborhood of Cedarland Heights.

You see how ridiculous this may sound. Believe it or not, arguments similar to these have been made in AfD debates, sometimes by a majority of participants, favoring keeping the article, and in many cases, resulting in the articles being kept. But that does not make the topic encyclopedic.

Notability is not about being the biggest, the best, or the only of something. Likewise, not fitting this description does not make something not notable. Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information. No matter what, you can combine all the variables you would like, and then find something unique about every person, every business, every idea.

[edit] Prestigious position

A well-educated person may seem automatically worthy of an article. But one's studies alone do not grant him/her one.

• He has a post-graduate degree.

• She is a physician.

• He is a priest/minister/rabbi/imam.

• She is an attorney.

Certain positions and titles in front of a person's name are a sign of having really accomplished something. Being known as "Dr. John Doe" or "The Reverend John Doe" or "John Doe, Attorney at Law" sounds a lot nicer than simply being called "John Doe." It is quite deserving too. Yet, there are plenty of people out there in these positions who have never received the coverage needed to be given a Wikipedia article. In fact, a very small percentage of those in such positions have accomplished just that.

It may seem strange to you that at the same time, so many people who have not come close to the above qualify for having articles. Some people have articles for writing one book, acting in one film, or publishing one song. Some people have articles for playing briefly on a professional sports team. Some people have earned themselves articles just for being victims of crime or even stranger when you come to think of it, committing the crimes themselves.

While this may seem so unfair, this does not mean a person in such a high field is unimportant or is being dishonored. It is just that Wikipedia is based on information that has been made available via professional publishing, and some fields tend to be better covered than others.

[edit] Non-profit/government operated

Many public transport services raise part of their revenue with advertising

• The subject is not out there to make money.

• This is a service provided by a government agency.

• This article does not advance the subject's cause.

It is a given. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. If you've reached this page, you probably know this by now. But the absence of seeking profit is not a free pass to having an article.

For starters, in case you have not noticed, Wikipedia does allow articles about for-profit companies, provided that they meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia has thousands of articles on for-profit companies, ranging from international corporations that are household vocabulary (e.g. Wal-Mart), to some local businesses operating a single location known mostly to those in the region (such as the Jumeirah Essex House).

Likewise, an entity that is not out there to make a profit, and is funded by taxes or private donations, or does not operate using money at all, can be excluded if it fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.

One thing to be aware of is that many services operated by a national, state/provincial, or municipal government are not 100% tax-funded and do indeed solicit income via advertising, just like a for-profit corporation. For example, the United States Postal Service, as well as selling its stamps, uses televised advertising to make their offerings known. Many government-operated lotteries are run more like businesses. And political candidates are looking for donations for their campaigns, not to mention, votes. This does not exclude them from having articles, but still, all inclusion and citation guidelines must be carefully met.

You also cannot forget that the purpose of many non-profit organizations is to support some partisan, often controversial cause (e.g. NARAL Pro-Choice America, PETA). This does not rule out their ability to have articles, as many such organizations are indeed worthy of them. But it requires that any such article that is written must be based on neutral, factual information, and does not promote or oppose the cause.

[edit] What not to create

If you think you have some great idea that is not on Wikipedia, you may be eager to rush to create it and save the page as soon as possible, failing to research if there even is an article on the topic, or if one could exist. But there are various types of articles that one may think are worth creating, but it is better not to.

[edit] Don't create an article about yourself!

And likewise, don't create an article about a member of your family, a close friend, or even an acquaintence you barely know. Don't create an article about a company or organization in which any of these are somehow affiliated. Yes, writing articles about people, companies, and organizations is permitted. And your interest in a subject does help. But your ability to write an article conforming to Wikipedia guidelines about yourself or a person, company, or organization with which you or someone you know has connections is severely compromised when you may know a lot of information that was not published in sources.

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more details on this concept.

[edit] Don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article

There are many items of interest that do exist, and do have reliable sources covering them. But only a brief amount of information can be written about them, and they directly relate to a topic covered in another article. It is preferable to have such information simply added to the article where it best fits. When the information is added to an article, the title it would have, had it been given a standalone article, can then redirect to that section of the article using the formatting "#REDIRECT [[Article#Section]]." See WP:TARGET for more information on this.

When such an article does exist, it is suggested that it be merged.

Some good reasons for creating separate standalone articles are:

1. Information would cause another article to exceed size limitations
2. Information would be grossly irrelevant to any article in which it is contained
3. Information can be relevant to multiple articles, and it is hard to determine where it would better belong
4. In a collection of single subjects within a category, the amounts of information on each vary, but those with less cannot sensibly be mixed with those that have more.

Some good reasons not to create separate standalone articles are:

1. The only information about the subject is from its own source
2. The only information about the subject comes all from a single source
3. Only a few sentences of information can be written, and most likely, there will never be any more (see WP:PERMASTUB)

[edit] Don't create articles on common words or phrases

There are lots of words and phrases that are a common part of daily vocabulary. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The mere existence and frequent use of that word or phrase does not automatically guarantee an article with that title on Wikipedia. Only if it can be used to describe something beyond its very basic definition can it be used to title an article on Wikipedia.

Lots of these common words or phrases may also have one or more obscure meanings. When such is the case, it may be useful to create it as a redirect to another title, or as a disambiguation page listing encyclopedic topics using that title.

[edit] Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers

Many stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten. They may receive coverage in newspapers in every city and town across a nation, or even throughout the world. But they do just for that short period of time.

Most newspapers are reliable sources. But Wikipedia is not news. And Notability is not temporary. News does get shared between news sources, and is often printed in hundreds of papers, covering a large geographic area, identically word-for-word in each paper. So an article may look impressive and pass for being notable if it has 109 references, each from a different paper. But just because you bombard an article with identical sources does not mean it can never be deleted.

This is especially true of biographical articles. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted That person should instead be covered in the article about the event itself.

[edit] References are not optional

Wikipedia's guidelines are many and requirements are few but the one requirement which stands out among the general notability guidelines and each of the subject-specific ones is that notability requires verifiable evidence. Each article must be referenced with reliable sources. This requirement applies to all articles, including newly created ones. Notability is not obvious. Topics that are common household vocabulary face deletion and have been deleted in the past, and continue to be to this day. References are not optional for any article or subject area.

While there may be some consensus that some topics generally are notable (e.g. widely released films, album releases from notable music artists, licensed radio stations, etc.), this is an indication that references should relatively easy to find, not a loophole in general notability guidelines.

To avoid your hard work being challenged and possibly deleted, ensure that references are there when you submit. This is particularly true of new articles. If you dont have time to properly cite references in a new article, don't submit it, with plans to add references later or expect others to find references for you. Use a subpage of your user space. Once you've completed your work, move it to the main namspace.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
• Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
• Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of