This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
These are my notes on the general notability guideline (GNG). I learned a lot of this in NPP school, by picking the brains of top NPPs, and by participating in AFDs and paying attention to the outcomes. GNG is interpreted much more strictly than you'd think at first glance.
Roughly speaking, the idea behind GNG is that you should have three high quality sources available to write your encyclopedia article with.
If these sources cannot be found, then we are unable to write a high enough quality encyclopedia article (it would violate core policies such as WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.), and it would be better to not have an article on the topic, rather than having a bad article.
High quality sources have the following properties:
Keeping in mind some exceptions and nuances below, the general notability guideline (GNG) is important enough that I am going to attempt an over-simplification: the 3-3 rule.
To pass GNG, an article should have around 3 high quality sources that each go into around 3 dense paragraphs of detail specifically about the subject.
Simple answer: 3
I was taught that they were, but it has recently come to my attention that some editors regard them as secondary. [2] [3] I consider this to be an unsolved question and I will keep an eye out for consensus.
Primary | Secondary |
---|---|
witness to an event, that posts on Twitter or a blog | newspaper article |
company website | |
study in an academic journal | review article in an academic journal |
court documents | book by an independent legal expert that analyzes the case |
judge's ruling in a case | book by an independent legal expert that analyzes the case |
interview | |
YouTube video | |
webpage providing database-like info, no analysis | |
Internet Movie Database (IMDB) | movie review by professional critic |
Blog or personal website about a computer game | game review by gaming magazine |
Declaration of Independence | book about the American Revolution |
This is one of the harder ones to spot until you see the pattern, but any article that has obviously been written based on content from a press release is not independent, and does not pass GNG.
Most people don't fill these out at AFD, because they take a lot of time to fill out, but they are quite useful. This is what is going on inside an experienced editor's head when they are evaluating GNG. Example table:
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
IMDB | Independence of author and content. | Crowd sourced. Self published. | Entire page is about him. | ✘ No |
BAFTA | Independence of author and content. | Looks like an organization's website. I don't see any sign of journalism. Just pages with brochures, audio, videos, interviews, photo galleries, press releases. Looks like a primary source. | Jordan David not mentioned on page. | ✘ No |
Self published by subject. | No editor to double check content. | Entire page is about him. | ✘ No | |
BehindTheVoiceActors.com | Independence of author and content. | There's not enough analysis. It's just data. It's a primary source. | Entire page is about him. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
In addition to GNG, there are also single-subject notability guidelines. There's a lot of them and they are complex. They come in two flavors.
I have an essay on these too. If you're a beginner, skip SNG's for now. Don't worry about them. Keep it simple.
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
These are my notes on the general notability guideline (GNG). I learned a lot of this in NPP school, by picking the brains of top NPPs, and by participating in AFDs and paying attention to the outcomes. GNG is interpreted much more strictly than you'd think at first glance.
Roughly speaking, the idea behind GNG is that you should have three high quality sources available to write your encyclopedia article with.
If these sources cannot be found, then we are unable to write a high enough quality encyclopedia article (it would violate core policies such as WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.), and it would be better to not have an article on the topic, rather than having a bad article.
High quality sources have the following properties:
Keeping in mind some exceptions and nuances below, the general notability guideline (GNG) is important enough that I am going to attempt an over-simplification: the 3-3 rule.
To pass GNG, an article should have around 3 high quality sources that each go into around 3 dense paragraphs of detail specifically about the subject.
Simple answer: 3
I was taught that they were, but it has recently come to my attention that some editors regard them as secondary. [2] [3] I consider this to be an unsolved question and I will keep an eye out for consensus.
Primary | Secondary |
---|---|
witness to an event, that posts on Twitter or a blog | newspaper article |
company website | |
study in an academic journal | review article in an academic journal |
court documents | book by an independent legal expert that analyzes the case |
judge's ruling in a case | book by an independent legal expert that analyzes the case |
interview | |
YouTube video | |
webpage providing database-like info, no analysis | |
Internet Movie Database (IMDB) | movie review by professional critic |
Blog or personal website about a computer game | game review by gaming magazine |
Declaration of Independence | book about the American Revolution |
This is one of the harder ones to spot until you see the pattern, but any article that has obviously been written based on content from a press release is not independent, and does not pass GNG.
Most people don't fill these out at AFD, because they take a lot of time to fill out, but they are quite useful. This is what is going on inside an experienced editor's head when they are evaluating GNG. Example table:
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
IMDB | Independence of author and content. | Crowd sourced. Self published. | Entire page is about him. | ✘ No |
BAFTA | Independence of author and content. | Looks like an organization's website. I don't see any sign of journalism. Just pages with brochures, audio, videos, interviews, photo galleries, press releases. Looks like a primary source. | Jordan David not mentioned on page. | ✘ No |
Self published by subject. | No editor to double check content. | Entire page is about him. | ✘ No | |
BehindTheVoiceActors.com | Independence of author and content. | There's not enough analysis. It's just data. It's a primary source. | Entire page is about him. | ✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
In addition to GNG, there are also single-subject notability guidelines. There's a lot of them and they are complex. They come in two flavors.
I have an essay on these too. If you're a beginner, skip SNG's for now. Don't worry about them. Keep it simple.