 | This is an
essay on
notability. 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Some notability guidelines define certain criteria that are ipso facto or “bright-line” criteria that call for acceptance if properly verified. |
Most notability guidelines have a subjective aspect. The general notability guidelines call for significant independent coverage by reliable sources, and many other notability guidelines follow the general notability guidelines. Many Articles for Deletion discussions turn on opinions as to what constitutes significant coverage. However, some notability guidelines provide what is known as a “bright-line” or an ipso facto criterion for notability, stating that a person is notable if they have had a particular achievement, honor, status, or position. In such cases, significant coverage is not necessary. It is either assumed that there has been significant coverage (whether or not it has been found) or assumed that there should have been significant coverage.
Some examples of ipso facto notability standards are:
- The political notability guideline give ipso facto notability to members of national and subnational legislatures. It does not apply to members of lower-ranking legislatures, such as city councils, or to candidates for subnational legislatures, who must meet general notability.
- The sports notability guidelines consist largely of ipso facto notability for persons who have played at the highest professional level in a sport, who have competed in any modern Olympic games, or who have achieved any of various other specified distinctions. Other sportspeople who have not played at the highest professional level, competed in the Olympics, etc., are only notable if they satisfy general notability.
- The academic notability guidelines include criterion 3, academics who have been elected as fellows of academies and societies, and criterion 5, named chairs. Other criteria are subjective.
However, the qualifying statement about the subject of an article must be verified by a reliable source. The statement must be sourced to a reliable source. The source should be assumed to be reliable, such as a local or regional newspaper, unless there is reason to think that the source is unreliable.
Articles for Creation reviewers, New Page Patrol reviewers, Articles for Deletion participants, and other editors who are assessing notability should in particular be aware of ipso facto notability. Articles for Creation reviewers should Accept a draft that contains a verified statement satisfying an ipso facto notability test. They should Decline a draft that contains only one or more unverified statements of notability. They should not Reject a draft that contains only one or more unverified statements of ipso facto notability, because the author should be able to resubmit it with proper sourcing. New Page reviewers should not tag a page as A7 if it makes an unverified statement of ipso facto notability. It may be tagged as needing verification. However, the unverified statement of notability is a credible claim of significance. Articles that have been nominated for deletion should be Kept if there is a verified statement of ipso facto notability. If in doubt, reviewers and AFD participants should re-read the notability guideline and research the details. Not everyone knows that members of the assemblies in Tasmania and Bihar are notable, but Wikipedia provides that information.
It is important to assume good faith by an editor who asserts ipso facto notability, and check out whether that argument is substantiated by a guideline. It is conversely important for an editor who is asserting ipso facto notability to assume good faith by other editors, who may not understand that a bright-line case is being made.
- Claims of notability, where the claims are based on sources meeting the WP:GNG, should be refused if these sources are all classified as deprecated or blacklisted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
- WP:DEFACTO – Inherently notable topics are likely to survive AfDs.
| This is an
essay on
notability. 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. |
| This page in a nutshell: Some notability guidelines define certain criteria that are ipso facto or “bright-line” criteria that call for acceptance if properly verified. |
Most notability guidelines have a subjective aspect. The general notability guidelines call for significant independent coverage by reliable sources, and many other notability guidelines follow the general notability guidelines. Many Articles for Deletion discussions turn on opinions as to what constitutes significant coverage. However, some notability guidelines provide what is known as a “bright-line” or an ipso facto criterion for notability, stating that a person is notable if they have had a particular achievement, honor, status, or position. In such cases, significant coverage is not necessary. It is either assumed that there has been significant coverage (whether or not it has been found) or assumed that there should have been significant coverage.
Some examples of ipso facto notability standards are:
- The political notability guideline give ipso facto notability to members of national and subnational legislatures. It does not apply to members of lower-ranking legislatures, such as city councils, or to candidates for subnational legislatures, who must meet general notability.
- The sports notability guidelines consist largely of ipso facto notability for persons who have played at the highest professional level in a sport, who have competed in any modern Olympic games, or who have achieved any of various other specified distinctions. Other sportspeople who have not played at the highest professional level, competed in the Olympics, etc., are only notable if they satisfy general notability.
- The academic notability guidelines include criterion 3, academics who have been elected as fellows of academies and societies, and criterion 5, named chairs. Other criteria are subjective.
However, the qualifying statement about the subject of an article must be verified by a reliable source. The statement must be sourced to a reliable source. The source should be assumed to be reliable, such as a local or regional newspaper, unless there is reason to think that the source is unreliable.
Articles for Creation reviewers, New Page Patrol reviewers, Articles for Deletion participants, and other editors who are assessing notability should in particular be aware of ipso facto notability. Articles for Creation reviewers should Accept a draft that contains a verified statement satisfying an ipso facto notability test. They should Decline a draft that contains only one or more unverified statements of notability. They should not Reject a draft that contains only one or more unverified statements of ipso facto notability, because the author should be able to resubmit it with proper sourcing. New Page reviewers should not tag a page as A7 if it makes an unverified statement of ipso facto notability. It may be tagged as needing verification. However, the unverified statement of notability is a credible claim of significance. Articles that have been nominated for deletion should be Kept if there is a verified statement of ipso facto notability. If in doubt, reviewers and AFD participants should re-read the notability guideline and research the details. Not everyone knows that members of the assemblies in Tasmania and Bihar are notable, but Wikipedia provides that information.
It is important to assume good faith by an editor who asserts ipso facto notability, and check out whether that argument is substantiated by a guideline. It is conversely important for an editor who is asserting ipso facto notability to assume good faith by other editors, who may not understand that a bright-line case is being made.
- Claims of notability, where the claims are based on sources meeting the WP:GNG, should be refused if these sources are all classified as deprecated or blacklisted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
- WP:DEFACTO – Inherently notable topics are likely to survive AfDs.